A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing open versus endoscopic in situ decompression for the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome

To examine whether endoscopic in situ decompression (EISD) or open in situ decompression (OISD) would have superior outcomes with lower morbidity in patients with idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome, we reviewed all studies compared both surgical techniques with regard to postoperative outcomes and complication profile in a systematic review design with meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers conducted a PRISMA-compliant search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies about clinical comparisons of OISD and EISD in cubital tunnel syndrome. We performed all meta-analyses with the Review Manager 5.3 software. For dichotomous variables, the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. For continuous variables, the mean difference (MD) and 95% CIs were calculated. The level of significance was set as p < 0.05. Finally, 8 articles with 582 patients finally were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the difference in Bishop score, visual analogue scale score reduction, postoperative satisfaction, postoperative hematoma rate and secondary surgical procedures were not statistically significant between the EISD group and the OISD group (p > 0.05). However, pooled results showed that patients who underwent EISD had a greater improvement in the scar tenderness/elbow pain than did those who underwent OISD with statistical significance (p < 0.0001). This meta-analysis demonstrated that EISD and OISD for surgical treating cubital tunnel syndrome had equivalent efficacy regarding postoperative clinical recovery, whereas the incidences of adverse events of EISD were also same as those with the OISD technique.