Clinicians › Elbow

Cubital tunnel release

Surgeon-side topic for cubital tunnel release. Backed by 354 articles from the corpus, retrieved via combined MeSH + title-text matching.

92 citationsUpdated Sep 2026

For patients: a plain-language version of this topic is available. See the patient guide.

Overview

Cubital tunnel release is an operative intervention for cubital tunnel syndrome, with surgical outcomes generally favorable. More than 90% of patients achieve cure or improvement [11], and the procedure provides clinically relevant relief of hand symptoms [9]. Patient-reported outcomes are good, though they are influenced by preoperative symptom severity [22]. Improvement in pain and function may also extend to symptoms both within and outside the ulnar nerve distribution [1].

The short-term complication rate for cubital tunnel surgery is low at 5.6% [30]. This rate varies by technique, with in situ cubital tunnel release reporting a 3.6% complication rate and ulnar nerve transposition reporting a 9.6% rate [30]. The incidence of failure requiring ipsilateral revision surgery remains steadily low at 1.4% [17], and the overall risk of revision is low [16]. Most patients undergoing revision cubital tunnel release and submuscular transposition experience relief of symptoms [3].

Operative selection is influenced by patient factors and surgeon preference, with most surgeons utilizing more than one procedure for treatment [33]. Endoscopic cubital tunnel release is a minimally invasive option that allows for smaller incisions, faster recovery, and minimal scarring [34]. Its safety and efficacy are comparable to more invasive procedures [34], with early short-term results showing satisfactory outcomes and minimal complications [15]. Concomitant endoscopic carpal and cubital tunnel release yields results and complications comparable to these procedures performed alone [10]. Notably, patients undergoing carpal tunnel release are 15 times more likely to undergo cubital tunnel release than the general population, and vice versa at 11.5 times [4]. Despite these established outcomes, a standardized core outcome set is needed to compare results across various decompression techniques [60].

Anatomy & Pathophysiology

Epidemiology & Clinical Presentation

Cubital tunnel syndrome is the second most common entrapment neuropathy of the upper extremity, following carpal tunnel syndrome [21]. The reported incidence is nearly 21 cases per 100,000 people per year [21], with a prevalence in the United States population ranging between 1.8% and 5.9% [61]. Male gender is a demonstrated risk factor for the condition [61]. Patients typically present with worsening sensory numbness of the hand and digits in an ulnar distribution, progressing to motor weakness of the hypothenar musculature and hand clawing due to loss of intrinsic musculature [21]. An aching pain localized to the elbow or proximal forearm may be reported, though pain is not a common symptom [21]. Clinical manifestations include dysesthesias in the small finger and ulnar side of the ring finger, exacerbated by prolonged elbow flexion [59]. More advanced findings include intrinsic muscle weakness of the hand, hypothenar wasting, and resulting functional impairment [59]. Patients undergoing cubital tunnel release often have a history of trauma to the anatomic site of the older cubital tunnel [61].

Anatomical Structures & Compression Sites

The ulnar nerve’s posterior location and superficial course render it particularly susceptible to irritation, compression, and traction, particularly with elbow motion [59]. The most common site of ulnar nerve entrapment is about the elbow [59]. Compression may stem from space-occupying lesions, compression proximally at the ligament of Struthers (medial intermuscular septum), and fascial bands distally between the ulnar and humeral heads of the flexor carpi ulnaris [59]. Additionally, compression may occur about the roof of the cubital tunnel in patients with an anconeus epitrochlearis [59]. The dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve innervates the ulnar aspect of the dorsum of the hand and arises from the ulnar nerve approximately 6 cm proximal to the wrist [21]. If sensation is diminished in the territory of the dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve, the localization is proximal to this nerve and is likely within the cubital tunnel [21]. With preserved dorsal sensation, the lesion may be localized to Guyon canal in the wrist [21]. The medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve lies along the fascia usually about 3 cm distal to the medial epicondyle [47]. Proximally, the arcade of Struthers and the medial intermuscular septum are structures that may tether the nerve [21]. Distally, structures that may tether the nerve after transposition include: * Branches of the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve * Vascular branches from the ulnar artery * Osborne fascia * Ulnar motor branches to the flexor carpi ulnaris * The distal intermuscular septum * The flexor-pronator muscle origin * The investing fascia of the flexor digitorum superficialis overlying the ulnar nerve [21]

Biomechanics & Pathophysiology

With progressive elbow flexion, the ulnar nerve experiences friction, traction, and compression forces [32]. Elbow flexion diminishes the volume of the cubital tunnel and elongates the nerve [59]. The area within the cubital tunnel decreases beyond 90° of elbow flexion [94]. During elbow flexion, the humeral trochlea protrudes into the cubital tunnel, causing dynamic morphologic changes in the ulnar nerve [98]. With elbow flexion, the ulnar nerve did not move appreciably in the distal–proximal direction directly at the cubital tunnel, but maximal excursion was in the fatty region proximal to the elbow [97]. Studies using pressure measurements showed that there is a much larger increase in intraneural pressure compared to extraneural pressure, with no evidence of direct compression during elbow flexion [112]. Data points to traction of the ulnar nerve with elbow flexion as the major contributor to increased intraneural pressure and symptomology [112]. Shoulder position changes the ulnar nerve strain around the elbow in living patients with cubital tunnel syndrome [113]. Increased elbow flexion in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome influences the intraneural blood flow of the ulnar nerve [116]. An in situ release of the ulnar nerve at the elbow may relieve pressure on the nerve but does not address the problem of strain [147]. Anterior transposition demonstrates increased regional strain when the arm is in extension, whereas in situ decompression shows increased strain value in flexion [59]. The presence or cross-sectional area of an anconeus epitrochlearis muscle does not correlate with the area of the ulnar nerve or cubital tunnel with the elbow in extension [70]. Ulnar nerve instability does not appear to be associated with elbow symptoms in the general population [141].

Diagnostic Imaging & Electrodiagnostics

The diagnosis is made by clinical history and physical examination, with adjunct electrophysiology and imaging as needed [21]. Electrodiagnostic studies by an experienced examiner are critical in the differential diagnosis and localization of the level of compression [58]. Ultrasonography sensitivity for diagnosing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow is 46% to 100%, and specificity is 43% to 97% [21]. Ultrasonography can demonstrate hypoechoic, enlarged nerve fascicles [21]. The application of an ultra-high-resolution 22 MHz transducer depicts significantly more details of the intraneural architecture of the ulnar nerve compared with a 15 MHz transducer, while cross-sectional area measurements remain similar [145]. MRI sensitivity for diagnosing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow is as high as 95%, and specificity is 80% [21]. MRI can demonstrate enlarged, T2-hyperintense nerve lesions proximal to a point of compression with distal muscle atrophy [21]. As the severity of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow increases, the cross-sectional area of the ulnar nerve correspondingly increases at the elbow [71].

Classification

ICD-9-CM Coding: The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 354.2 identifies patients diagnosed with cubital tunnel syndrome [124]. Procedure codes distinguish specific surgical interventions: 04.49 and 04.04 indicate simple decompression of the ulnar nerve at the elbow [124], while 04.60 indicates transposition of the ulnar nerve at the elbow [124]. Code 04.79 indicates surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome by other method [124].

Dellon Classification: Dellon's classification evaluates the degree of ulnar nerve compression, including measurements of motor and sensitive function [119]. Grade 3 is defined as severe cubital tunnel syndrome [119]. The Dellon and MacKinnon classification allows for the calculation of differential success rates of the procedure based on the severity of ulnar nerve compression [130].

Gabel and Amadio Classification: This system is used to measure pre- and postoperative motor and sensory abnormalities and pain [130].

McGowan Classification: The modified McGowan grade is used to assess pre- and postoperative status in cubital tunnel syndrome [35]. McGowan stage I disease is a predictor of revision surgery after in situ decompression [63].

Bishop Scoring System: This system is used to assess postoperative clinical outcomes in cubital tunnel syndrome [119].

Wilson and Krout Grading System: This system is used to assess postoperative clinical status in cubital tunnel syndrome [126].

Other Considerations: Definitions for the degree of ulnar nerve instability at the elbow are not uniformly agreed upon [55]. The Patient-Rated Ulna Nerve Evaluation (PRUNE) score is the only validated diagnosis-specific tool for cubital tunnel syndrome [41].

In experimental rat models, a 4-part classification for nerve health defines grade 4 as normal nerve, grade 3 as abnormal axons in one-third cross-sectional area, grade 2 as abnormal axons in two-thirds cross-sectional area, and grade 1 as abnormal axons in 100% cross-sectional area [111]. A separate 3-part classification for perineural scar formation defines grade 3 as scar completely encasing the nerve, grade 2 as scar formation partially surrounding the nerve, and grade 1 as no scar [111].

Surgical definitions for epicondylectomy specify that partial epicondylectomy involves removal of greater than 40% of the medial epicondyle [131], whereas minimal epicondylectomy involves removal of less than 20% of the medial epicondyle [131].

Clinical Presentation

Epidemiology and Demographics

Cubital tunnel decompression is associated with prior trauma to the anatomic site [36]. Surgical cases for carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome are more common in deprived patients and occur at an earlier age [80]. Patients undergoing cubital tunnel release are 11.5 times more likely to undergo carpal tunnel release than the general population [4]. Men with cubital tunnel syndrome are more likely to present with muscle atrophy than women [73].

Symptoms and Signs

Patients typically present with worsening sensory numbness of the hand and digits in an ulnar distribution [21]. An aching pain localized to the elbow or proximal forearm may be reported, although pain is not a common symptom of cubital tunnel syndrome [21]. Dysesthesias in the small finger and ulnar side of the ring finger are exacerbated by prolonged elbow flexion [59]. As the disease progresses, symptoms may involve motor weakness of the hypothenar musculature and clawing of the hand due to loss of intrinsic musculature [21]. Later in the disease process, patients may complain of grip weakness and hand atrophy [59].

Physical Examination and Localization

Clinical evaluation is paramount in the diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome because electrodiagnostic testing often is not sufficiently sensitive to detect changes associated with the syndrome [18]. A detailed ulnar nerve examination should assess sensation in the distribution of the dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve, which innervates the ulnar aspect of the dorsum of the hand [21]. If sensation is diminished in the dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve territory, the localization is proximal to this nerve and likely within the cubital tunnel [21]. Subluxation or dislocation of the ulnar nerve during elbow flexion can be palpated and may be associated with increased symptoms [21]. Ulnar nerve mobility may be associated with dislocation of the medial head of the triceps [21]. The scratch collapse test may be a reliable physical examination technique for localizing the point of maximal nerve compression [83]. In a series of 64 patients, the scratch collapse test was positive in the region of Osborne’s band, which corresponded with intraoperative findings of tight compression [83].

Diagnostic Testing

Electrophysiology is helpful to ensure proper diagnosis and targeted treatment [21]. Ultrasonography sensitivity for diagnosing ulnar neuropathy at the elbow ranges from 46% to 100%, and specificity ranges from 43% to 97% [21]. Most clinicians order preoperative tests before offering surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome, but only 6% order both electrodiagnostic studies and ultrasound as per expert consensus [19]. Nearly forty percent of patients with a provisional diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome had either another nerve pathology or a normal nerve conduction test [88]. Patient-reported preoperative disease severity may predict the expected postoperative change in ulnar nerve functional improvement, whereas electrodiagnostic severity may not have prognostic value for patients undergoing cubital tunnel decompression [23]. Patients who underwent cubital tunnel release had a significant short-term improvement in their QuickDASH scores, regardless of electrodiagnostic diagnosis [74]. Patients with an anconeus epitrochlearis experience quicker symptom improvement after cubital tunnel release than those without the anomalous muscle [79].

Investigations

Clinical Examination and History

The diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome relies on clinical history and physical examination, supplemented by adjunct electrophysiology and imaging as needed [21]. Patients typically present with worsening sensory numbness of the hand and digits in an ulnar distribution, progressing to motor weakness of the hypothenar musculature and clawing of the hand [21]. An aching pain localized to the elbow or proximal forearm may be reported, although pain is not a common symptom [21]. A detailed ulnar nerve examination must assess sensation in the distribution of the dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve to localize the lesion proximal to the wrist (cubital tunnel) or distally (Guyon canal) [21]. Identification of dislocating structures, such as the medial head of the triceps, is important as it may affect surgical decision making [21].

Electrodiagnostic Studies

Most clinicians order preoperative tests before offering surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome, but only 6% order both electrodiagnostic studies (EDX) and ultrasound as per expert consensus [19]. Electrodiagnostic severity (EDS) may not have prognostic value for patients undergoing cubital tunnel decompression [23]. Conversely, patient-reported preoperative disease severity may predict the expected postoperative change in ulnar nerve functional improvement [23].

Imaging

Ultrasonography: Musculoskeletal ultrasound has emerged as a reasonable alternative to electrodiagnostic studies in the diagnostic work-up of cubital tunnel syndrome [140]. It demonstrates hypoechoic, enlarged nerve fascicles with a reported sensitivity of 46% to 100% and specificity of 43% to 97% [21]. Preoperative dynamic ultrasound demonstrates greater sensitivity and specificity than physical examination to assess ulnar nerve stability within the cubital tunnel [144]. As the severity of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow increases, the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the ulnar nerve correspondingly increases at the elbow [71]. With the elbow in extension, the presence or cross-sectional area of an anconeus epitrochlearis muscle does not correlate with the area of the ulnar nerve or cubital tunnel [70]. The reduction of the cross-sectional area of the ulnar nerve is small even years after decompression [139].

MRI: MRI has a reported sensitivity as high as 95% and specificity of 80% for demonstrating enlarged, T2-hyperintense nerve lesions proximal to a point of compression with distal muscle atrophy [21]. It is an effective diagnostic modality for identifying primary synovial chondromatosis as a causative factor of cubital tunnel syndrome [115].

Treatment

Non-Operative

The provided evidence does not detail specific conservative management protocols such as weight loss, physical therapy, NSAIDs, or injections. Surgical intervention is discussed in the context of treating ulnar neuropathy at the elbow, with specific indications for operative care outlined below.

Operative

Indications: Surgical decision-making is influenced by patient factors and surgeon preference, with most surgeons utilizing more than one operative procedure for cubital tunnel syndrome [33]. Anterior transposition is indicated when ulnar nerve subluxation or dislocation is apparent and reproducible during elbow flexion on physical examination [21]. In patients with ulnar neuropathy and no evidence of active subluxation, in situ decompression is feasible and cost-effective [21]. Currently, the lack of standardized grading systems and outcome measures makes it impossible to preoperatively determine which specific procedure to perform [32]. Patients who undergo carpal tunnel release are 15 times more likely to undergo cubital tunnel release than the general population, and those who undergo cubital tunnel release are 11.5 times more likely to undergo carpal tunnel release [4].

Surgical Approach / Technique: In situ decompression has a reported success rate of 65.3% to 94.1% [21], while subcutaneous transposition has a reported success rate of 77.7% to 94% [21]. A recent Cochrane review demonstrated no difference in symptom severity scores at follow-up (6 and 12 months) between in situ decompression and anterior transposition techniques [21]. Current evidence suggests that the different surgical methods to treat ulnar neuropathy at the elbow do not differ in their clinical outcomes [32]. In cases of idiopathic non-traumatic ulnar nerve compression at the cubital tunnel, both simple neurolysis and transposition are effective in improving clinical outcome [100].

Endoscopic cubital tunnel release is a minimally invasive, simple, and fast procedure that allows for smaller incisions, faster recovery, and minimal scarring, with safety and efficacy shown to be comparable to more invasive procedures [34]. Outcomes of endoscopic techniques have been similar to in situ decompression for symptom relief and return to work, with higher scar satisfaction among patients [21]. The endoscopic approach facilitates inspection of the ulnar nerve so that selective release of the tissue that compresses the nerve can readily be performed [20]. A 4-cm open incision allowed visualization of approximately 9 cm proximal and 9 cm distal to the medial epicondyle, which was equivalent to the 2-cm endoscopic technique for cubital tunnel release [52]. The authors describe a 2-stage local anesthetic injection method that safely introduces local anesthetic within the cubital tunnel, achieving comfort, sufficient visualization, and the ability to decompress multiple compression sites through a minimal incision [96]. Arthroscopic ulnar nerve release and subcutaneous transposition is a feasible alternative to the open procedure [90]. This technique appears to be a useful procedure for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome at the time of elbow arthroscopic debridement arthroplasty [49]. Postoperative results and complications are comparable to endoscopic carpal and cubital tunnel releases performed alone when performed concomitantly [10].

Anesthesia and Perioperative Considerations: Decompression of the ulnar nerve under local anaesthetic is a reliable procedure, which is well tolerated by the majority of patients [68]. Good pain control can be achieved during all steps of the procedure when using wide-awake surgery with local anaesthesia with adrenaline [121].

Complications and Revision Rates: Complications from in situ decompression and transposition include ulnar instability, infection, and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve injury [21]. Complication rates are reported to be 3% for in situ decompression and up to 14% for transposition [21]. Short-term complication rates of cubital tunnel surgery are low (5.6%), but higher for ulnar nerve transposition (9.6%) than in situ cubital tunnel release (3.6%) [30]. Rates of secondary surgery were higher in patients undergoing anterior transposition (in situ release 2.5% vs anterior transposition 11.1%) [21]. Symptoms recurred at a rate of 3.6% after Hoffmann and Siemionow's endoscopic cubital tunnel release, which is comparable to other endoscopic or open techniques [26].

Revision: In patients with recurrent symptoms, a significant proportion (77%) can experience either motor and/or sensory improvement, with 23% achieving complete recovery from symptoms at final follow-up after revision cubital tunnel decompression [21]. Patients do show improvement following revision cubital tunnel decompression [41]. Outcomes for revision surgery are poorer than primary procedures [32]. Anterior transposition is commonly used for revision cases but no literature is available to support this practice [32]. Recurrent, as well as persistent complaints of cubital tunnel syndrome do not necessarily require an anterior transposition [137]. Neurolysis, i.e. excision of any scars or scarred epineurium around the nerve without intraneural neurolysis, over a sufficiently long distance is sufficient for recurrent cases [137].

Other Considerations: A nerve transfer of the terminal anterior interosseous nerve to pronator quadratus to the fascicle groups of the deep UN in the distal forearm may confer some benefit by providing the distal nerve with a pool of healthy motor axons to repopulate empty endoneurial tubes in cases with severe intrinsic wasting [41]. Successful supercharging end-to-side (SETS) nerve transfer has been reported in cases with active denervation on electromyography [41]. This treatment approach for bony encasement of the ulnar nerve secondary to heterotopic ossification leads to superior range of motion, improved or resolved ulnar neuropathy, and good to excellent long-term functional outcomes [7]. Lower reimbursement is likely related to lack of a dedicated current procedural terminology code for endoscopic cubital tunnel release [54]. Because of the low power of the included studies, further investigations with a larger patient population, longer follow-up, better documentation of endoscopic devices/techniques used, and criteria for surgical intervention are needed to better characterize the role of endoscopic cubital tunnel release [6].

Complications

General Complication Rates: The short-term complication rate for cubital tunnel surgery is 5.6% [30]. The overall secondary surgery rate after cubital tunnel surgery is 5.7% [64], while the overall revision rate for idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome surgery is 2.8% [158]. In a study of 25,977 cases, the incidence of failure requiring ipsilateral revision surgery after cubital tunnel release was 1.4% [17]. The risk of revision cubital tunnel release within 3 years was low [16]. The rate of revision surgery following cubital tunnel release with transposition is low, with no major differences in revision rates among different types of surgical transposition [56].

In Situ Decompression vs. Transposition: Ulnar nerve transposition is associated with increased rates of complication and revision surgery compared to in situ decompression [92]. The short-term complication rate for ulnar nerve transposition is 9.6%, which is higher than the 3.6% rate for in situ cubital tunnel release [30]. The revision surgery rate after ulnar nerve transposition is 7.8%, which is higher than the 1.8% rate after in situ cubital tunnel release [92]. Rates of secondary surgery were higher in patients undergoing anterior transposition (11.1%) compared to in situ release (2.5%) [21]. The secondary surgery rate is higher for patients undergoing ulnar nerve transposition and for patients with prior elbow trauma [64].

Specific Nerve Injuries and Neuromas: Medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve injury is a reported complication of both in situ decompression and transposition [21]. Iatrogenic medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve neuromas can occur secondary to primary cubital tunnel decompression [41]. The most common operative finding in secondary operations for cubital tunnel syndrome was a medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve neuroma, present in 73 of 100 patients [87]. Pain in the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve distribution was the most common complaint after primary surgery, reported by 55 of 100 patients [87]. A distal kink of the ulnar nerve was noted in 57 of 100 patients undergoing secondary operation for cubital tunnel syndrome [87]. Distal kinking of the ulnar nerve with transposition is a potential cause of reoperation [87]. Poor outcomes and unnecessary revision surgeries can be avoided with intraoperative attention to 7 structures distal to the medial epicondyle [162].

Infection: Postoperative infections occur in approximately 2.17% of Medicare cases following cubital tunnel release [156]. In a cohort of ulnar nerve transpositions, two cases of postoperative infection (0.9%) were treated with antibiotics and wound care [92]. Preoperative antibiotics do not significantly decrease the risk for postoperative infections in patients undergoing uncomplicated ulnar nerve releases at the elbow [164].

Recurrence and Revision Outcomes: Symptoms recurred at a rate of 3.6% after endoscopic cubital tunnel release [26]. Failure rates for cubital tunnel release range from 3% to 35% depending on the severity of symptoms before surgery [101]. The most common complaint after primary surgery was increased symptoms in the ulnar nerve distribution, reported by 55 of 100 patients [87]. Results of revision surgery for recurrent or persistent cubital tunnel syndrome are less predictable and satisfying than primary surgery [67]. Improvements in pain and paresthesias are noted in approximately 75% of patients following revision procedures for persistent or recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome [53]. A significant proportion (77%) of patients with recurrent symptoms can experience either motor and/or sensory improvement after revision cubital tunnel decompression [21]. Twenty-three percent of patients achieve complete recovery from symptoms at final follow-up after revision cubital tunnel decompression [21]. Revision cubital tunnel surgery provides average functional outcomes, with transposition surgery being the most common index surgery performed [72]. The uncommon patient with continued symptoms after decompression can be treated effectively with transposition of the ulnar nerve [65].

Risk Factors for Complications and Revision: A history of elbow fracture or dislocation is a predictor of revision surgery after in situ decompression, with an odds ratio of 7.1 [63]. McGowan stage I disease is a predictor of revision surgery after in situ decompression, with an odds ratio of 3.2 [63]. Concurrent surgery with in situ decompression is protective against revision surgery, with an odds ratio of 0.19 [63]. The secondary surgery rate is higher for patients with prior elbow trauma [64]. Nonsmokers had significantly better outcomes than smokers following anterior transmuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve [42].

Endoscopic and Specific Technique Complications: Endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression is associated with minimal complications [15]. Postoperative results and complications for concomitant endoscopic carpal and cubital tunnel release are comparable to endoscopic releases performed alone [10]. The low power of included studies limits the ability to fully characterize the role and safety profile of endoscopic cubital tunnel release [6].

Other Considerations: Surgical site tenderness was least after in situ release, with statistical significance noted at 2 weeks [75]. In situ decompression resulted in fewer wound complications compared to transposition or epicondylectomy [75]. There were fewer operation-related complications in patients undergoing ulnar nerve stability-based surgery via a small incision compared to classic anterior transposition [110]. Patients undergoing classic anterior transposition experienced one superficial infection, two painful scars, and five cases of numbness at the medial elbow [110]. The most common complication following ulnar nerve transposition is persistent or recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome at a rate of 7.8% [92]. The most common complications following in situ cubital tunnel release are ulnar nerve instability (1.3%), persistent or recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome (0.9%), and infection (0.9%) [92].

Recovery

Light activity (weeks): The evidence provided does not specify a defined week range for the resumption of desk work, driving, or light activities of daily living.

Full activity (months): The evidence provided does not specify a defined month range for the return to manual work, sport, or full range of motion and strength.

Complete recovery / outcome plateau (months): For patients with severe symptoms, relief may proceed to a more gradual improvement in sensory or motor dysfunction, which, depending on the degree of severity, may occur over weeks, months, or even years [31]. Many patients with severe symptoms achieve substantial improvement, albeit sometimes after a prolonged convalescence [31].

Rehabilitation protocol: The evidence provided does not specify a rehabilitation protocol, including PT phasing, immobilisation duration, weight-bearing/ROM progression, or sling/brace removal timing.

Functional milestones: In the 3rd month after surgery, differences in patient-rated function following in situ decompression and ulnar nerve transposition have normalized [155].

Other Considerations: Patient-reported preoperative disease severity may predict the expected postoperative change in ulnar nerve functional improvement, and EDS may not have prognostic value for patients undergoing cubital tunnel decompression [23]. Surgical release of cubital tunnel syndrome can be one of the most rewarding procedures, with many grateful patients reporting rapid improvement in sleep patterns and diurnal discomfort [31]. Although the outcome of ulnar nerve transposition is not always satisfactory in severe ulnar neuropathy, useful relief of symptoms can be achieved [39]. Although the overall patient experience after cubital tunnel surgery was positive, participants noted that there is a need for providing improved educational resources and counseling before surgery [50]. Anterior interosseous nerve transfer, along with cubital and ulnar tunnel release, results in sustained clinical and electrophysiological improvements in patients with severe chronic ulnar nerve compression [159]. At mid-term follow-up, 92% of overhead athletes returned to sport after ulnar nerve transposition, with 62% resuming their previous level of performance [129]. At short- to mid-term follow up, 85% of overhead or throwing athletes were able to return to sporting activity after ulnar nerve transposition, with 72% resuming their previous level of performance [133].

Key Evidence

• [L3] Improvement in pain and function after cubital tunnel release may be associated with an improvement in symptoms both within and outside the ulnar nerve distribution. [1] (10.1007/s11552-014-9688-9)
• [L3] The majority of patients undergoing revision cubital tunnel release and submuscular transposition have relief of symptoms. [3] (10.1016/j.jhsg.2025.100810)
• [L4] Patients who undergo carpal tunnel release are 15 times more likely to undergo cubital tunnel release than the general population, and those who undergo cubital tunnel release are 11.5 times more likely to undergo carpal tunnel release. [4] (10.1177/1753193420980983)
• [Paper] Cubital tunnel release appears to carry a higher liability than other procedures within hand surgery such as carpal tunnel release. [5] (10.1177/15589447251369033)
• [L1] Because of the low power of the included studies, further investigations with a larger patient population, longer follow-up, better documentation of endoscopic devices/techniques used, and criteria for surgical intervention are needed to better characterize the role of endoscopic cubital tunnel release. [6] (10.1097/prs.0000000000004112)
• [L4] This treatment approach leads to superior range of motion, improved or resolved ulnar neuropathy, and good to excellent long-term functional outcomes. [7] (10.1016/j.jse.2023.12.003)
• [L3] Cubital tunnel release resulted in clinically relevant relief of hand symptoms. [9] (10.1177/17531934241275487)
• [L4] Postoperative results and complications are comparable to endoscopic carpal and cubital tunnel releases performed alone. [10] (10.1007/s11552-013-9552-3)
• [L4] Surgery was effective in treating cubital tunnel syndrome with more than 90% of patients cured or showing improvement. [11] (10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.009)
• [L5] Endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression has gained popularity with early short-term results being encouraging, showing satisfactory outcomes and minimal complications. [15] (10.1136/jisakos-2020-000506)
• [L3] The risk of revision cubital tunnel release was low. [16] (10.1097/corr.0000000000002629)
• [L4] The incidence of failure requiring ipsilateral revision surgery after cubital tunnel release remained steadily low (1.4%) during the study period. [17] (10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.028)
• [L4] Clinical evaluation is paramount in the diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome because electrodiagnostic testing often is not sufficiently sensitive to detect changes associated with the syndrome. [18] (10.1016/j.hcl.2013.08.019)
• [L4] Most clinicians order preoperative tests before offering surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome, but only 6% order both EDX and ultrasound as per expert consensus. [19] (10.1177/17531934261434155)
• [L4] The endoscopic approach facilitates inspection of the ulnar nerve so that selective release of the tissue that compresses the nerve can readily be performed. [20] (10.1177/1753193408094443)
• [L3] The patient-reported outcome of surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome is good but is affected by preoperative symptom severity. [22] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.05.014)
• [L3] Patient-reported preoperative disease severity may predict the expected postoperative change in ulnar nerve functional improvement, and EDS may not have prognostic value for patients undergoing cubital tunnel decompression. [23] (10.1016/j.jse.2024.01.055)
• [L4] Symptoms recurred at a rate of 3.6% after Hoffmann and Siemionow's endoscopic cubital tunnel release, which is comparable to other endoscopic or open techniques. [26] (10.1016/j.jhsg.2020.03.006)
• [L3] The short-term complication rates of cubital tunnel surgery are low (5.6%), but higher for ulnar nerve transposition (9.6%) than in situ cubital tunnel release (3.6%). [30] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.033)
• [L5] [31] (10.1097/corr.0000000000002680)
• [L4] [32] (10.1016/j.hcl.2013.04.013)
• [L4] Most surgeons use more than one operative procedure in their treatment of patients with cubital tunnel syndrome and the selection of the operative procedure is influenced by patient factors and surgeon preference. [33] (10.1007/s11552-008-9133-z)
• [L5] Endoscopic cubital tunnel release is a minimally invasive, simple, and fast procedure that allows for smaller incisions, faster recovery, and minimal scarring, with safety and efficacy shown to be comparable to more invasive procedures. [34] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.07.030)
• [L3] [35] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.12.012)
• [L4] Cubital tunnel decompression is associated with prior trauma to the anatomic site. [36] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.07.009)
• [L4] Although the outcome of ulnar nerve transposition is not always satisfactory in severe ulnar neuropathy, useful relief of symptoms can be achieved. [39] (10.1177/1753193408092252)
• [L5] [41] (10.1302/2058-5241.6.200135)
• [L4] This technique appears to be a useful procedure for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome at the time of elbow arthroscopic debridement arthroplasty. [49] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.01.003)
• [L4] Although the overall patient experience after cubital tunnel surgery was positive, participants noted that there is a need for providing improved educational resources and counseling before surgery. [50] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.03.012)
• [L5] A 4-cm open incision allowed visualization of approximately 9 cm proximal and 9 cm distal to the medial epicondyle, which was equivalent to the 2-cm endoscopic technique for cubital tunnel release. [52] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.10.004)
• [L4] [53] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.03.057)
• [L3] Lower reimbursement is likely related to lack of a dedicated current procedural terminology code for endoscopic cubital tunnel release. [54] (10.1177/1558944716679610)
• [L4] Definitions for the degree of ulnar nerve instability at the elbow are not uniformly agreed upon, and further development of a classification system may be warranted to standardize treatment. [55] (10.1055/s-0038-1665548)
• [L3] The rate of revision surgery following cubital tunnel release with transposition is quite low, and there do not appear to be major differences in the rate of revision among the different types of surgical transposition, indicating that a true subcutaneous transposition may be adequate. [56] (10.1016/j.jhsg.2025.100815)
• [L1] A standardized core outcome set is needed to compare results of various techniques of cubital tunnel decompression. [60] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.04.001)
• [L3] [63] (10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.015)
• [L4] The secondary surgery rate after cubital tunnel surgery was 5.7% overall, but higher for patients with prior elbow trauma and for patients undergoing ulnar nerve transposition. [64] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.01.020)
• [L4] The uncommon patient with continued symptoms after decompression can be treated effectively with transposition of the ulnar nerve. [65] (10.1177/1753193408101467)
• [L4] Results of revision surgery for recurrent or persistent cubital tunnel syndrome are less predictable and satisfying than primary surgery. [67] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.11.024)
• [L4] [68] (10.1054/jhsb.2000.0525)
• [L4] With the elbow in extension, the presence or cross-sectional area of an AEM does not correlate with the area of the ulnar nerve or cubital tunnel. [70] (10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.021)
• [L2] As the severity of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow increases, the CSA of the ulnar nerve correspondingly increases at the elbow. [71] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2024.12.004)
• [L1] Revision cubital tunnel surgery provides average functional outcomes with transposition surgery as the most common index surgery performed. [72] (10.1016/j.otsr.2019.03.020)
• [L4] Men with cubital tunnel syndrome are more likely to present with muscle atrophy than women. [73] (10.1177/1558944716643096)
• [L4] Patients who underwent cubital tunnel release had a significant short-term improvement in their QuickDASH scores, regardless of EDX diagnosis. [74] (10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.08.013)
• [L3] [75] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.06.067)
• [L4] Patients with an anconeus epitrochlearis experience quicker symptom improvement after cubital tunnel release than those without the anomalous muscle. [79] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.06.032)
• [L4] Carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel syndrome requiring surgery is more common in deprived patients and occurs at an earlier age. [80] (10.1177/1753193420939384)
• [L4] [83] (10.1007/s11552-009-9225-4)
• [L4] [87] (10.1007/s11552-007-9037-3)
• [L4] Nearly forty percent of patients with a provisional diagnosis of CubTS had either another nerve pathology or a normal test. [88] (10.1016/j.jse.2020.01.064)
• [L4] Our technique of arthroscopic ulnar nerve release and subcutaneous transposition is a feasible alternative to the open procedure. [90] (10.1016/j.eats.2024.103253)
• [L4] [92] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.034)
• [L5] The area within the cubital tunnel decreases beyond 90° of elbow flexion. [94] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.09.014)
• [L4] The authors describe a 2-stage local anesthetic injection method that safely introduces local anesthetic within the cubital tunnel, achieving comfort, sufficient visualization, and the ability to decompress multiple compression sites through a minimal incision. [96] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.04.004)
• [L5] With elbow flexion, the ulnar nerve did not move appreciably in the distal–proximal direction directly at the cubital tunnel, but maximal excursion was in the fatty region proximal to the elbow. [97] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.03.016)
• [L5] The humeral trochlea protrudes into the cubital tunnel during elbow flexion, causing dynamic morphologic changes in the ulnar nerve. [98] (10.1016/j.jse.2022.05.026)
• [L4] In cases of idiopathic non-traumatic ulnar nerve compression at the cubital tunnel, both simple neurolysis and transposition are effective in improving clinical outcome. [100] (10.1007/s00701-013-1962-z)
• [L4] [101] (10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.003)
• [L3] [110] (10.1186/s13018-015-0267-8)
• [L5] [111] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.08.007)
• [L4] [112] (10.1007/s12593-009-0020-9)
• [L4] To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study showing that shoulder position changes the ulnar nerve strain around the elbow in living patients with CubTS. [113] (10.1016/j.jse.2015.01.014)
• [Case_report] MRI is an effective diagnostic modality, and clinicians should be aware of primary synovial chondromatosis as a causative factor of cubital tunnel syndrome. [115] (10.1177/1758573216683396)
• [L3] Increased elbow flexion in patients with CuTS influences the intraneural blood flow of the ulnar nerve. [116] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.06.024)
• [L1] [119] (10.1227/01.neu.0000145854.38234.81)
• [L4] Good pain control can be achieved during all steps of the procedure. [121] (10.1177/17531934241252518)
• [L3] [124] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.04.044)
• [L3] [126] (10.1016/j.jse.2005.10.007)
• [L4] At mid-term follow-up, 92% of overhead athletes returned to sport after ulnar nerve transposition, with 62% resuming their previous level of performance. [129] (10.1016/j.jse.2020.02.001)
• [L4] [130] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.04.030)
• [L4] [131] (10.1007/s11999-012-2263-1)
• [L4] At short- to mid-term follow up, 85% of overhead or throwing athletes were able to return to sporting activity after ulnar nerve transposition, with 72% resuming their previous level of performance. [133] (10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.073)
• [L4] [137] (10.1177/1753193420970022)
• [L4] The reduction of the cross-sectional area of the ulnar nerve is small even years after decompression. [139] (10.1177/1753193416635803)
• [L2] Musculoskeletal ultrasound has emerged as a reasonable alternative to electrodiagnostic studies in the diagnostic work-up of carpal tunnel syndrome, cubital tunnel syndrome, and other peripheral nerve compression syndromes. [140] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2024.11.009)
• [L3] Ulnar nerve instability does not appear to be associated with elbow symptoms in the general population. [141] (10.1016/j.jseint.2021.05.005)
• [L2] Preoperative US demonstrates greater sensitivity and specificity than physical examination to assess ulnar nerve stability within the cubital tunnel. [144] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.10.013)
• [L2] The application of an ultra-high-resolution 22 MHz transducer is feasible and depicts significantly more details of the intraneural architecture of the ulnar nerve compared with a 15 MHz transducer, while cross-sectional area measurements remain similar. [145] (10.1177/17531934231167751)
• [L5] An in situ release of the ulnar nerve at the elbow may relieve pressure on the nerve but does not address the problem of strain. [147] (10.1007/s11552-015-9770-y)
• [L2] In the 3rd month after surgery, differences in patient-rated function following in situ decompression and ulnar nerve transposition have normalized. [155] (10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.06.066)
• [L3] Postoperative infections are uncommon, occurring in approximately 2.17% of Medicare cases following cubital tunnel release. [156] (10.1177/2325967118772799)
• [Paper] The overall revision rate for idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome surgery is low (2.8%) with no significant difference between in situ decompression and anterior transposition. [158] (10.1055/s-0039-1694292)
• [L4] Anterior interosseous nerve transfer, along with cubital and ulnar tunnel release, results in sustained clinical and electrophysiological improvements in patients with severe chronic ulnar nerve compression, which encourages its adoption as a standard treatment for severe chronic ulnar nerve compression. [159] (10.1177/17531934251381023)
• [L5] Poor outcomes and unnecessary revision surgeries for cubital tunnel syndrome can be avoided with intraoperative attention to 7 structures distal to the medial epicondyle. [162] (10.1177/1558944718771390)
• [L4] Preoperative antibiotics do not demonstrate benefit for patients undergoing uncomplicated ulnar nerve releases at the elbow and do not significantly decrease the risk for postoperative infections in patients, regardless of patient comorbidities. [164] (10.1177/15589447221107688)

See Also

• Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

References

[1] Prospective Cohort Study of Symptom Resolution outside of the Ulnar Nerve Distribution following Cubital Tunnel Release. HAND. 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-014-9688-9

[3] Efficacy of Submuscular Transposition for Revision Cubital Tunnel Release: Comparative Outcomes Analysis. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2025.100810

[4] The association between surgery for carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome: analysis of incidence and risk factors within a geographical area. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2021. DOI: 10.1177/1753193420980983

[5] Litigation in Cubital Tunnel Surgery. HAND. 2025. DOI: 10.1177/15589447251369033

[6] Endoscopic versus Open In Situ Cubital Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of 655 Patients. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1097/prs.0000000000004112

[7] Bony encasement of the ulnar nerve secondary to heterotopic ossification of the elbow: an evaluation of long-term outcomes. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.12.003

[9] Changes in hand function and health state utility after cubital tunnel release using the United Kingdom Hand Registry. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2024. DOI: 10.1177/17531934241275487

[10] Concomitant Endoscopic Carpal and Cubital Tunnel Release: Safety and Efficacy. HAND. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-013-9552-3

[11] Cubital tunnel syndrome: Comparative results of a multicenter study of 4 surgical techniques with a mean follow-up of 92 months. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.009

[15] Endoscopic cubital tunnel decompression: state of the art. Journal of ISAKOS. 2021. DOI: 10.1136/jisakos-2020-000506

[16] What Factors Are Associated With Revision Cubital Tunnel Release Within 3 Years?. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2023. DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000002629

[17] Risk factors for revision surgery following isolated ulnar nerve release at the cubital tunnel: a study of 25,977 cases. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.028

[18] Minimal-Incision In Situ Ulnar Nerve Decompression at the Elbow. Hand Clinics. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2013.08.019

[19] Preoperative tests before cubital tunnel decompression in 2025. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2026. DOI: 10.1177/17531934261434155

[20] Endoscopic Anatomical Nerve Observation and Minimally Invasive Management of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2008. DOI: 10.1177/1753193408094443

[21] Orthopaedic Knowledge Update 13 Ebook Without Multimedia. Neuropathies, Vascular Conditions: Buerger’s, Raynaud’s; Degenerative Conditions > Upper Extremity Neuropathies > Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

[22] Patient-Rated Outcome of Ulnar Nerve Decompression: A Comparison of Endoscopic and Open In Situ Decompression. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.05.014

[23] Electrodiagnostic severity does not predict short- to midterm outcomes of cubital tunnel release surgery. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.01.055

[26] Symptom Recurrence After Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2020.03.006

[30] Complication Rates of Cubital Tunnel Surgery: In situ Cubital Tunnel Release Compared with Ulnar Nerve Transposition. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.033

[31] CORR Insights®: What Factors Are Associated With Revision Cubital Tunnel Release Within 3 Years?. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2023. DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000002680

[32] Ulnar Neuropathy at the Elbow. Hand Clinics. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2013.04.013

[33] Selection of Operative Procedures for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. HAND. 2008. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-008-9133-z

[34] Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.07.030

[35] Predicting Revision Following In Situ Ulnar Nerve Decompression for Patients With Idiopathic Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.12.012

[36] Surgical Demographics of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Cubital Tunnel Syndrome Over 5 Years at a Single Institution. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.07.009

[39] Severe Tardy Ulnar Nerve Palsy caused by Traumatic Cubitus Valgus Deformity: Functional Outcome of Subcutaneous Anterior Transposition. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2008. DOI: 10.1177/1753193408092252

[41] The management of failed cubital tunnel decompression. EFORT Open Reviews. 2021. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200135

[42] Green S Operative Hand Surgery. Median Nerve Compression at the Elbow and Forearm > Expected Outcome After Anterior Transposition of the Ulnar Nerve With Release of the Flexor-Pronator Muscle Origin for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

[47] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. COMPRESSIVE NEUROPATHIES OF THE HAND, FOREARM, AND ELBOW > CUBITAL TUNNEL SYNDROME AND TARDY ULNAR NERVE PALSY > IN SITU DECOMPRESSION OF THE ULNAR NERVE.

[49] Arthroscopic Ulnar Nerve Decompression in the Setting of Elbow Osteoarthritis. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.01.003

[50] Factors Influencing Patient Experience After Cubital Tunnel Syndrome Surgery. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.03.012

[52] Visualization During Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital Tunnel Decompression: A Cadaveric Study. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.10.004

[53] The Management of Persistent and Recurrent Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.03.057

[54] Trends in Open and Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release in the Medicare Patient Population. HAND. 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1558944716679610

[55] Decision-Making Factors for Ulnar Nerve Transposition in Cubital Tunnel Surgery. Journal of Wrist Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1665548

[56] Cubital Tunnel Revision After Transposition: A Single Center Experience. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2025.100815

[58] Green S Operative Hand Surgery. Median Nerve Compression at the Elbow and Forearm > Recurrent Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

[59] Orthopaedic Knowledge Update 13 Ebook Without Multimedia. Elbow Degenerative Conditions and Nerve Disorders > Nerve Disorders > Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

[60] Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.04.001

[61] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. COMPRESSIVE NEUROPATHIES OF THE HAND, FOREARM, AND ELBOW > CUBITAL TUNNEL SYNDROME AND TARDY ULNAR NERVE PALSY.

[63] Predictors of surgical revision after in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.015

[64] Rates of Complications and Secondary Surgeries After In Situ Cubital Tunnel Release Compared With Ulnar Nerve Transposition: A Retrospective Review. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.01.020

[65] Incidence of Re-Operation and Subjective Outcome Following in Situ Decompression of the Ulnar Nerve at the Cubital Tunnel. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2009. DOI: 10.1177/1753193408101467

[67] Recurrent or Persistent Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.11.024

[68] Ulnar Nerve Decompression in the Cubital Canal using Local Anaesthesia. Journal of Hand Surgery. 2001. DOI: 10.1054/jhsb.2000.0525

[70] Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging analysis of the cross-sectional areas of the anconeus epitrochlearis muscle, cubital tunnel, and ulnar nerve with the elbow in extension in patients with and without ulnar neuropathy. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.021

[71] Association of Ultrasound and Electrodiagnostic Studies in Patients Evaluated for Ulnar Neuropathy. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2024.12.004

[72] Revision surgery for refractory cubital tunnel syndrome: A systematic review. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.03.020

[73] Muscle Atrophy at Presentation of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. HAND. 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1558944716643096

[74] Electrodiagnostic Testing Predicts Postdecompression Outcomes in Patients With Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.08.013

[75] Clinical Diagnosis of Coincident Carpal and Cubital Tunnel Syndromes. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.06.067

[79] Prevalence and Clinical Manifestations of the Anconeus Epitrochlearis and Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.06.032

[80] The effect of social deprivation on the incidence rate of carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome surgery. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1753193420939384

[83] Scratch Collapse Test Localizes Osborne's Band as the Point of Maximal Nerve Compression in Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. HAND. 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-009-9225-4

[87] Operative Findings in Reoperation of Patients with Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. HAND. 2007. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-007-9037-3

[88] Nerve Conduction Study Results for Suspected Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.01.064

[90] All‐Arthroscopic Ulnar Nerve Release and Subcutaneous Transposition. Arthroscopy Techniques. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2024.103253

[92] Examining Reduced Regeneration Associated with Increasing Length in Nerve Autografts. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.034

[94] Morphology of the Cubital Tunnel: An Anatomical and Biomechanical Study With Implications for Treatment of Ulnar Nerve Compression. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.09.014

[96] Wide Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.04.004

[97] Laxity of the Ulnar Nerve During Elbow Flexion and Extension. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.03.016

[98] Dynamic analysis of the ulnar nerve and cubital tunnel morphology using ultrasonography: a cadaveric study. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.05.026

[100] Comparative outcomes of ulnar nerve transposition versus neurolysis in patients with entrapment neuropathy at the cubital tunnel: a 20-year analysis. Acta Neurochirurgica. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-013-1962-z

[101] Outcomes of revision neurolysis of the ulnar nerve and ulnar groove plasty for persistent and recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome—A retrospective study of 21 cases. Injury. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.003

[110] Ulnar nerve stability-based surgery for cubital tunnel syndrome via a small incision: a comparison with classic anterior nerve transposition. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2015. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-015-0267-8

[111] Submuscular Versus Subcutaneous Anterior Ulnar Nerve Transposition: A Rat Histologic Study. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.08.007

[112] Cubital tunnel syndrome – Review of current literature on causes, diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Hand and Microsurgery. 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s12593-009-0020-9

[113] Shoulder position increases ulnar nerve strain at the elbow of patients with cubital tunnel syndrome. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.01.014

[115] Ulnar nerve palsy caused by synovial protrusion in synovial chondromatosis of the elbow: a case report and literature review. Shoulder & Elbow. 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1758573216683396

[116] Dynamic Evaluation of Intraneural Microvascularity of the Ulnar Nerve Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography in Patients With Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.06.024

[119] Simple Decompression versus Anterior Submuscular Transposition of the Ulnar Nerve in Severe Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Prospective Randomized Study. Neurosurgery. 2005. DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000145854.38234.81

[121] Wide-awake surgery using local anaesthesia with adrenaline for ulnar nerve decompression and medial epicondylectomy. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2024. DOI: 10.1177/17531934241252518

[124] Trends in the Surgical Treatment of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: An Analysis of the National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery Database. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.04.044

[126] Comparative study between minimal medial epicondylectomy and anterior subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2006. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2005.10.007

[129] Return to sporting activity after ulnar nerve transposition for isolated neuritis in competitive overhead athletes. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.02.001

[130] An Anatomical Basis for Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release and Associated Clinical Outcomes. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.04.030

[131] Minimal Epicondylectomy Improves Neurologic Deficits in Moderate to Severe Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2263-1

[133] Return to Sporting Activity After Ulnar Nerve Transposition for Isolated Neuritis in Competitive Overhead Athletes. Arthroscopy. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.073

[137] Challenging the dogma: anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve is indicated in recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1753193420970022

[139] Cross-sectional area of the ulnar nerve after decompression at the cubital tunnel. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1753193416635803

[140] The Use of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound for Diagnosis of Peripheral Nerve Compression Syndromes. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2024.11.009

[141] The ultrasonographic assessment of the morphologic changes in the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel in Japanese volunteers: relationship between dynamic ulnar nerve instability and clinical symptoms. JSES International. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2021.05.005

[144] The Use of Preoperative Dynamic Ultrasound to Predict Ulnar Nerve Stability Following In Situ Decompression for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.10.013

[145] Ultra-high-definition (22 MHz) ultrasound of the ulnar nerve: additional value and normative data. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2023. DOI: 10.1177/17531934231167751

[147] The Effect of Operative Technique on Ulnar Nerve Strain following Surgery for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. HAND. 2015. DOI: 10.1007/s11552-015-9770-y

[155] Comparative Morbidity of Cubital Tunnel Surgeries: A Prospective Cohort Study. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.06.066

[156] Patient-Related Risk Factors for Infection Following Ulnar Nerve Release at the Cubital Tunnel: An Analysis of 15,188 Cases. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018. DOI: 10.1177/2325967118772799

[158] Rates of Revision Surgery following In Situ Decompression versus Anterior Transposition for the Treatment of Idiopathic Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Journal of Hand and Microsurgery. 2020. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1694292

[159] Anterior interosseous nerve transfer combined with cubital and ulnar tunnel release for severe ulnar nerve compression. Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2025. DOI: 10.1177/17531934251381023

[162] The 7 Structures Distal to the Elbow That Are Critical to Successful Anterior Transposition of the Ulnar Nerve. HAND. 2018. DOI: 10.1177/1558944718771390

[164] The Effectiveness of Preoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Ulnar Nerve Release at the Cubital Tunnel. HAND. 2022. DOI: 10.1177/15589447221107688