RESUMEN
Background Failure of carpal tunnel release is an uncommon occurrence with unique pathologies that may impede proper diagnosis and treatment. Symptoms are most often attributed to an inadequate release of the transverse carpal ligament or pathologic scar tissue resultant of the primary decompression. Case Description In this report, we describe the case of a 79-year-old male with a history of scaphoid lunate advanced collapse and a prior carpal tunnel decompression presenting with worsening right wrist function and new right palmar mass. The patient had no significant antecedent trauma, and clinical workup revealed volar dislocation of the lunate. After failed conservative treatment and multiple ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injections, the patient was successfully treated surgically with carpal tunnel release, tenosynovectomy, and lunate excision. Literature Review Volar lunate dislocation without a traumatic mechanism is rare. Progressive carpal destabilization and volar subluxation is not a commonly reported cause of secondary carpal tunnel symptoms. Isolated reports in the literature have been published with nearly identical presentations. Kamihata et al reported a patient, with a history of carpal tunnel decompression, presenting with numbness and tingling in her right hand without traumatic injury. A displaced lunate was found to abut the flexor tendons and median nerve. Ott et al further reported an atraumatic lunate dislocation and palmar swelling 4 weeks after a carpal tunnel release. Clinical Relevance In the setting of existing arthritic degeneration, carpal tunnel release may destabilize the carpus and predispose patients to carpal dislocation. Further research is required to understand the risks associated with this instability leading to lunate dislocations secondary to carpal tunnel release.
RESUMEN
Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common peripheral mononeuropathy in the upper extremity. However, the diagnosis and treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome remains controversial without a standard algorithm. Although diagnosis can often be made from the patient's history and physical examination alone, electrodiagnostic studies, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance image (MRI) can also be useful in diagnosing the disease and selecting the most appropriate treatment option. Treatment options include conservative nonoperative techniques as well as various surgical options, including in situ decompression with or without transposition, medial epicondylectomy, and nerve transfer in advanced disease. The purpose of this review is to summarize the most up-to-date literature regarding cubital tunnel syndrome and propose a treatment algorithm to provide clarity about the challenges of treating this complex patient population.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Supinator to posterior interosseous nerve (SPIN) transfer allows reconstruction of finger/thumb extension and thumb abduction for low radial nerve palsy, incomplete C6 tetraplegia, and brachial plexus injury affecting C7-T1. No study has compared dorsal versus volar approach to perform SPIN transfer. This comparison is studied in the present work, assessing supinator motor branch length and ability to achieve nerve transfer from either approach. METHODS: Ten fresh frozen cadavers were randomly allocated to receive either a dorsal or volar approach to PIN and supinator radial and ulnar branches (RB = radial, UB = ulnar). Supinator head innervation patterns were documented. RB and UB lengths, forearm lengths measured from ulnar styloid to olecranon, visualization of extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) motor nerve without additional dissection, and ability to perform tension-free nerve transfer were assessed. RESULTS: Nine of 10 specimens had supinator branches innervating both heads. The ECRB nerve was visualized in all volar but only one dorsal approach. No significant differences in forearm length were found. Volar with elbow extended: mean RB length was 35 ± 7.8 mm and UB was 37.8 ± 9.3 mm. Dorsal with elbow extended: mean RB length was 30 ± 4.1 mm and UB was 38.8 ± 7.3 mm. Dorsal with elbow flexed 90°: RB was 25.6 ± 3.8 mm and UB was 34.8 ± 4.8 mm. No significant differences were found in branch lengths between approaches (dorsal vs. volar UB, p = .339; dorsal vs. volar RB, p = .117). All limbs achieved tension-free coaptation. CONCLUSION: Neither approach demonstrated superiority in achieving tension-free nerve transfer. Volar permitted immediate identification of ECRB nerve whereas this was only visualized in one dorsal specimen without additional dissection. Overall, the volar approach allows direct coaptation in elbow extension, mimicking maximal physiologic tension for neurorrhaphy. It simultaneously permits additional procedures for pinch reconstruction via single exposure, circumventing limb/microscope maneuvering, dorsal dissection, and increased operative time. Ultimate choice of approach should depend on surgeon familiarity and potential need for additional simultaneous transfers.
