Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Ulnar Neuropathy Workup

  • Author: Charles F Guardia, III, MD; Chief Editor: Nicholas Lorenzo, MD, MHA, CPE  more...
 
Updated: Jul 20, 2016
 

Laboratory Studies

Routine studies for ulnar nerve entrapment are ordered to rule out anemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypothyroidism and include the following:

  • Complete blood cell (CBC) count
  • Urinalysis
  • Fasting blood glucose

Depending on the specific clinical situation, the following tests may be considered as well:

  • Hemoglobin A 1C [110]
  • Antinuclear antibody
  • Erythrocyte sedimentation rate
  • Renal function tests
  • Paraproteinemia workup (serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation)
  • Angiotensin-converting enzyme
  • Lyme serology
  • Thyroid function tests
  • Vitamins B-12, B-1, and B-6
  • Folate level
  • Methylmalonic acid
  • Tissue transglutaminase antibody
  • Gliadin antibody
  • HIV serology
  • Hepatitis serologies
Next

Radiography

Radiographs of the neck should be obtained if cervical disk disease is suspected and to rule out cervical ribs. Radiographs of the chest should be obtained if Pancoast tumor or tuberculosis is suspected.

Radiographs of both the elbow and the wrist are mandatory in ulnar nerve compression because double-crush syndrome may be present. Entrapment of the ulnar nerve may occur at more than one level.

Radiographs of the elbow reveal abnormal anatomy, such as a valgus deformity, bone spurs or bone fragments, a shallow olecranon groove, osteochondromas, and destructive lesions (eg, tumors, infections, or abnormal calcifications). If there is a history of trauma or arthritis, a cubital tunnel projection radiograph should be obtained to exclude medial trochlear lip osteophytes. If a supracondylar process on the medial aspect of the humerus is suspected, an elbow radiograph should be obtained 5 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle.

Radiographs of the wrist reveal fractures of the hook of the hamate, dislocations of the wrist bones, and, to a lesser extent, soft-tissue masses and calcifications.

Previous
Next

Ultrasonography

Ultrasonographic examination of peripheral nerves may be used to support the clinical and electrophysiologic diagnosis in a compressive neuropathy. It may also help in identifying specific compressive etiologies of nerve injury (eg, tumors or cysts) and visualizing structural nerve changes. Advantages of ultrasonography include the following:

  • Unlike computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasonography provides real time evaluation of nerve displacement or compression during movements of adjacent joints
  • Ultrasonography is noninvasive, cheap, portable, and well tolerated
  • Ultrasonography is readily available (though technicians with specific experience in peripheral nerve ultrasonography may not be)
  • The peripheral nerve can be followed for much of its course in an extremity [111, 112, 113, 114, 115]

The ultrasonographic finding that seems to be most useful in this setting is a change in the diameter of a nerve at the site of compression. Just proximal to the site of compression, swelling of the nerve can often be seen.

A small study suggested that using a ratio of the cross-sectional nerve area at the site of maximal enlargement and at an uninvolved site could improve diagnostic accuracy.[116] Using this ratio did not improve diagnostic accuracy over what could be achieved simply by looking for the point of maximal swelling; however, the ratio did help distinguish compressive neuropathies from other systemic processes associated with diffuse nerve enlargement (eg, diabetes and polyneuropathy).

Subsequently, another study examined nerve vascularity in 137 patients afflicted with ulnar neuropathy at the elbow and determined that increased intraneural vascularization visualized by ultrasonography was indicative of axonal damage.[117]

Using high-resolution ultrasonography, Chiou et al found that the mean value of the area of the ulnar nerve at the level of the medial epicondyle in symptomatic patients was significantly larger than that of the control group and that of the unaffected, contralateral side.[118] They concluded that if the area of the ulnar nerve was greater than 0.075 cm2, at the level of the medial epicondyle, the patient probably had cubital tunnel syndrome.

An area in which ultrasonography may be particularly useful is evaluation of traumatic peripheral nerve injuries. In one study, 20 fresh cadaver arms were disarticulated, and the median, ulnar, or radial nerves were randomly transected in zero, one, or two locations per arm.[119] Sham incisions were performed throughout the extremity. The peripheral nerves were then systematically scanned by ultrasonographers who were blinded to the sites of transection.

The investigators found that high-resolution ultrasonography was able to identify transected nerves with 89% sensitivity and 95% specificity.[119] The diagnostic accuracy improved throughout the study: With the first 10 arms, the ultrasonographer correctly identified the transection in 77% of cases, whereas with the final 10 arms, the accuracy was 100%.

These findings suggest that the experience of the ultrasonographer has a vital effect on the diagnostic utility of ultrasonography in peripheral nerve injury. Thus, ultrasonography may be useful in determining the prognosis for nerve injury when an experienced ultrasonographer is available to distinguish between partial and complete injury, in localizing a nerve transection for possible surgical repair, or in both.[119, 120]

A further consideration is the comparison of the localizations derived from both sonographic and electrophysiological methods. Simon et al compared the lesion localization obtained by careful short-segment neurophysiological inching studies with that obtained by ultrasonographic methods.[121] For the larger segment across the entire elbow, the overall drop in conduction velocity correlated well with the maximum cross-sectional area (CSA) and maximal degree of hypoechoic fraction. However, on the short segments in patients whose lesion was apparently at the medical epicondyle as judged by neurophysiological methods, the maximal songraphic abnormalities were detected both slightly proximally and slightly distally to the medial epicondyle. It was concluded, therefore, that the ultrasonographic images may be detecting secondary changes adjacent to the major site of damage.

Previous
Next

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MRI is being increasingly used in the evaluation of peripheral neuropathies, including ulnar neuropathy.[122] In most patients, history, physical examination, and electrophysiologic (EP) testing are sufficient to make the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy, and MRI is not necessary. However, there may be a subgroup of patients with inconclusive findings on the standard evaluation in whom MRI may be beneficial.[123]

On MRI, normal nerves appear as smooth, round, or ovoid structures that are isointense to surrounding muscles on T1-weighted sequences. There is often a rim of hyperintense signal on T1. On T2-weighted images, the nerve is normally isointense to slightly hyperintense with respect to surrounding muscle. Normal nerves do not enhance after administration of gadolinium.

Possible changes that could be seen in neuropathies include increased signal intensity within the nerve on T2-weighted sequences. On MRI, increased signal intensity is a better indicator of ulnar nerve entrapment than enlargement of the nerve is.

Neurogenic muscle edema can be seen as early as 24-48 hours after denervation, and short T1 inversion recovery (STIR) sequences are particularly sensitive for that. This is to be contrasted with EP testing, in which changes after denervation are not seen for 1-3 weeks. After months of denervation, fatty muscle atrophy is seen. Changes in the surrounding structures that may be related to the neuropathy in question, such as osteoarthritis, synovitis, or tumors, can be seen with MRI as well.[124]

Several small studies have attempted to address the use of MRI in the diagnostic evaluation of ulnar neuropathy. Vucic et al identified 52 patients who met clinical criteria for ulnar neuropathy on the basis of either sensory symptoms or motor weakness in the distribution of the ulnar nerve; all underwent EP testing.[125] In 63%, the EP studies were diagnostic of an ulnar neuropathy at a specific location, commonly at the elbow. In 37%, the studies were nonlocalizing according to American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine criteria.

All 52 patients subsequently underwent MRI scanning as well, which revealed abnormalities in 90%.[125] Of those patients who had diagnostic EP studies, 94% had an abnormal MRI; of those who had nondiagnostic EP studies, 84% had an abnormal MRI. The authors concluded that MRI was “more sensitive” than neurophysiologic testing and that the sensitivity of MRI did not change, regardless of the EP results.

A study by Andreisek et al assessed 51 patients with clinically evident neuropathies in the radial, median, or ulnar nerve who were referred to their center for MRI scans of an upper extremity.[126] The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the MRI results on clinical decision making and patient management.

Andreisek et al found only a weak-to-moderate correlation between MRI results and clinical findings—not surprisingly, given that clinical findings imply physiologic dysfunction of the nerves, whereas MRI findings can evaluate nerve morphology alone.[126] The greatest use of MRI in this study seemed to be in cases where the cause of the symptoms was unclear; in this situation, MRI reportedly identified the symptom etiology in 93% of cases. This resulted in a moderate-to-major impact on treatment in 84% of the patients in this subgroup.

These seemingly positive results notwithstanding, some caveats remain. First, criteria for diagnosing neuropathy on MRI scans are not well defined. Second, the clinical significance of certain MRI findings has been questioned. Husarik et al performed MRI elbow scans in 60 asymptomatic patients and found that 60% had increased ulnar-nerve signal intensity without concomitant changes in their medial or radial nerves. This study suggests that increased signal intensity should not be the sole criterion in evaluation for possible ulnar neuropathy.[127]

Britz et al examined the use of MRI with a STIR sequence to diagnose cubital tunnel syndrome.[128] They studied 31 elbows with documented ulnar nerve entrapment and found increased signal intensity in the ulnar nerve in 97% of cases and enlargement of the ulnar nerve in 75%.

An additional development in MRI technology is diffusion-tensor imaging.[129] This has heretofore been used mainly to image central myelin tracts, but it is clearly applicable to peripheral myelin as well. As with central myelin, quantitative measures of MRI parameters, including fractional anisotropy (FA), can be obtained. Qualitative FA maps of nerve tracts allow observers to detect peripheral neuropathy with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 83%, which are high enough to make them quite useful.

The role of MRI in the evaluation of ulnar and other peripheral neuropathies continues to evolve. At this point, it is reasonable to conclude that MRI may be a useful adjunct in select cases, either when a specific compressive lesion (eg, a mass) is suspected or when a patient with the clinical syndrome of ulnar neuropathy has nondiagnostic EP tests. To improve diagnostic accuracy, further research is required to develop standardized criteria for making the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy on MRI.[126, 127, 128, 130]

Previous
Next

Electromyography and Nerve Conduction Studies

Electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction studies are indicated to confirm the area of entrapment, document the extent of the pathology, and detect or rule out the possibility of double-crush syndrome.[131, 132, 133, 134] In recent entrapments of the ulnar nerve, motor and sensory conduction velocities are more useful, whereas in chronic neuropathies, conduction velocities and EMG are useful because EMG is capable of showing axonal degeneration.

EMG is not essential when the diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome is obvious on clinical examination; a false test result can be misleading and hinder rather than aid diagnosis. However, it is important to perform EMG when the diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome is unclear or when it is necessary to determine the efficacy of conservative treatment.[135]

Basic sensory and motor nerve parameters measured in nerve conduction studies include latency, amplitude, and conduction velocity. Electrodes (metallic reusable or pregelled disposable tape) are placed over the main belly of the active muscle (eg, the abductor digiti quinti or the first dorsal interosseous muscle)[108] and the tendon of the fifth or first digit. The ulnar nerve is stimulated at the wrist and above and below the elbow; this helps localize the site of involvement.

Short-segment stimulation (also known as the inching technique), in which the nerve is stimulated over 1- to 2-cm intervals, can increase the sensitivity of the procedure and may improve localization by helping the examiner judge whether a blockage is infracondylar (ie, near the cubital tunnel) or higher (ie, near the ulnar or epicondylar groove, the location associated with tardy ulnar palsy). (See the image below.)

Inching technique used to isolate conduction block Inching technique used to isolate conduction block in left ulnar nerve. Note significant amplitude drop at 305 mm, which correlates with position 2 cm above medial epicondyle. This is example of supracondylar block. Image courtesy of A S Lorenzo, MD.

Findings are considered to be positive for cubital tunnel syndrome when the motor conduction velocity across the elbow is less than 50 m/s or when the difference between the motor conduction velocity across the elbow and that below the elbow exceeds 10 m/s.

If the point of maximum conduction delay and drop in amplitude of the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) is at or just proximal to the medial epicondyle, compression of the ulnar nerve is probably at the level of the epicondylar groove. If the point of maximum conduction delay and drop in CMAP amplitude is 2 cm distal to the medial epicondyle, compression is probably in the cubital tunnel. Unfortunately, false-positive results are obtained in 15% of cases.

It should be kept in mind that in any given case, it is impossible to know the exact course the ulnar nerve follows. Considerable anatomic variation exists from person to person, and even controlling the angle of the elbow does not determine exactly where the nerve is running beneath the skin. Thus, the examiner does not know precisely where the nerve is being stimulated. The takeoff point of the impulse may not be exactly under the stimulator.

A good percentage of experienced electromyographers believe that in many if not most cases, the best that can be done is to establish whether a blockage exists at the elbow, and often, even that cannot be accomplished with certainty. The relevant anatomic issues have been discussed more fully by Campbell.[40]

Reservations aside, the reader is invited to try the inching technique and make an individual assessment of its potential utility in his or her own situation. This might include the following steps:

  • After performing the inching technique, report to the prospective surgeon where you think the blockage might be with respect to anatomic landmarks
  • Make it clear that this is a tentative assessment (ie, done to the best of your ability but not to be taken as definite)
  • Ask the surgeon to tell you where the blockage actually seemed to be after surgery was performed
  • Keep track of your own findings compared with surgical findings, and draw your own conclusions about how accurate the inching method is in your own hands

Even if the inching technique does not yield the exact localization of the lesion, the attempt to use it may be helpful in and of itself insofar as it makes the clinician more conscious of the anatomy.

Martin-Gruber anastomosis

The anatomic variant known as Martin-Gruber anastomosis is seen during routine nerve conduction studies and can pose a diagnostic dilemma if not identified as such. It is an anomalous pattern of innervation occurring between the median and ulnar nerves in the forearm.[136]

In a Martin-Gruber anastomosis, a crossover of axons from the anterior interosseous nerve (the exclusively motor branch of the median nerve) to the ulnar nerve in the forearm usually occurs. In such cases, no sensory fibers are involved in the crossover. However, in a small minority of cases, the crossover can occur from the main median trunk (in which case some sensory nerve fibers may cross over as well).

The Martin-Gruber anomaly occurs in 10-30% of individuals, and 60-70% of those affected show the anomaly bilaterally. In some families, an autosomal dominant inheritance is possible, though a gene controlling this occurrence has not been identified.

The fibers involved are from the C8/T1 nerve roots. Three patterns of Martin-Gruber anastomosis are commonly recognized, as follows (see the image below):

  • Type I (second most common pattern) - The hypothenar muscles are involved
  • Type II (most common pattern) - The crossover fibers innervate the first dorsal interosseous muscle
  • Type III (least common pattern) - The thenar muscles, typically the adductor pollicis and the flexor pollicis brevis rather than the abductor pollicis brevis, are involved; sometimes other muscles, including forearm muscles such as the flexor digitorum superficialis and the flexor digitorum profundus, are involved as well
    Normal median and ulnar patterns are compared with Normal median and ulnar patterns are compared with those of 3 commonly recognized types of Martin-Gruber anomaly.

In a patient who does not have a Martin-Gruber anastomosis, stimulating the median nerve at the wrist produces a CMAP amplitude at the thenar eminence (eg, abductor pollicis brevis) that is essentially the same size as the thenar CMAP produced by elbow stimulation. (The CMAP produced by wrist stimulation could be a bit larger because stimulating further away from the ultimate target muscle gives a little more temporal dispersion of the signal.)

In a patient who does have the anomaly, however, the wrist response is smaller because many axons from the median nerve have crossed already. Contributions from now median-innervated ulnar intrinsic hand muscles falsely increase the elbow response.

The converse is true with ulnar nerve stimulation during recording over the hypothenar eminence (abductor digiti quinti) or the first digital interosseous muscle; median nerve fibers are innervating ulnar muscles in the hand, and the elbow response is smaller (see the images below). This could be mistaken for a conduction block. Accordingly, a Martin-Gruber anastomosis should be excluded before an ulnar conduction block is diagnosed.

First 3 traces correspond to ulnar compound muscle First 3 traces correspond to ulnar compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude during recording at abductor digiti quinti (ADQ) and stimulating at wrist, below elbow, and above elbow, respectively. Fourth trace corresponds to stimulation of median nerve at elbow during recording at ADQ. Although CMAP amplitude is reduced markedly above elbow, this is compensated for by adding response seen after stimulation of median nerve; this represents Martin-Gruber anastomosis.
First 3 traces correspond to stimulation of ulnar First 3 traces correspond to stimulation of ulnar nerve during recording at first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle at wrist, below elbow, and above elbow, respectively. Fourth trace corresponds to stimulation of median nerve at elbow during recording at FDI muscle; this represents Martin-Gruber anastomosis.

These relations can be visualized even more clearly by considering the characteristic EMG patterns with respect to the corresponding anatomy (see the image below).

In those with Martin-Gruber anomaly who have no ot In those with Martin-Gruber anomaly who have no other significant neuropathy or nerve compression, stimulation of specific nerves at different sites yields differing results. With median nerve, stimulation at elbow yields larger compound muscle action potential (CMAP) at hypothenar muscles, first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle, or thenar muscles (or combination thereof) than does stimulation at wrist. With ulnar nerve, stimulation at wrist yields larger CMAP at hypothenar muscles, FDI muscle, or thenar muscles (or combination thereof) than does stimulation at elbow. In this context, "larger" and "smaller" generally refer to amplitude differences ≥1.0 mV.

The distinctions between the three major types of the Martin-Gruber anastomosis, the tests performed to confirm them, and the possible areas of clinical confusion are summarized in the Table below.

Table. Types of Martin-Gruber Anastomosis (Open Table in a new window)

Type Anatomy Most Characteristic Finding Confirmation Additional Verification Potential Clinical Confusion
I Crossover fibers innervate hypothenar muscles Ulnar stimulation at wrist* produces larger hypothenar CMAP than stimulation at elbow Stimulation of median nerve at elbow† produces response at hypothenar muscles Hypothenar CMAP from ulnar stimulation at wrist is equal to hypothenar CMAP from ulnar stimulation at elbow plus hypothenar CMAP from median stimulation at elbow Smaller response from proximal stimulation could be mistaken for conduction block
II Crossover fibers innervate FDI muscle Ulnar stimulation at wrist produces larger FDI CMAP than stimulation at elbow Stimulation of median nerve at elbow produces response at FDI FDI CMAP from ulnar stimulation at wrist is equal to FDI CMAP from ulnar stimulation at elbow plus FDI CMAP from median stimulation at elbow Usually none, because FDI muscle is not usually recording site; if it is used, conduction block could be suspected, as in type I
III Crossover fibers innervate thenar muscles (typically ADP and FPB) Elbow stimulation of median nerve produces greater thenar response than wrist stimulation Ulnar stimulation produces thenar CMAP with initial positive deflection; it is higher with wrist stimulation than with elbow stimulation For thenar CMAP amplitudes, median elbow stimulation amp is equal to median wrist stimulation amplitude plus ulnar wrist stimulation amplitude minus ulnar elbow stimulation amplitude Can complicate median nerve studies, especially when carpal tunnel syndrome is involved
ADP—adductor pollicis; CMAP—compound motor (or muscle) action potential; FDI—first dorsal interosseous; FPB—flexor pollicis brevis.



*Ulnar stimulation at wrist yields larger CMAP at hypothenar muscles, FDI, or thenar muscles (or sometimes combination of these) than does stimulation at elbow.



†Median stimulation at the elbow yields larger CMAP at hypothenar muscles, FDI, or thenar muscles (or sometimes combination of these) than does stimulation at wrist.



Note: “Larger” and “smaller” generally mean amplitude difference ≥1.0 mV.



Two potentially important diagnostic implications are associated with this Martin-Gruber anomaly.

First, in cases of carpal tunnel syndrome (ie, median mononeuropathy at the wrist), the larger median CMAP amplitude at the elbow has an initial positive (ie, downward) deflection, which is not seen at the wrist. The explanation is that the median nerve axons are traveling slower through the carpal tunnel, so that the median-innervated ulnar hand muscles conduct first, leading to a volume-conducted response that is manifested by a positive deflection.

If carpal tunnel syndrome is suspected clinically, the chance of a false-negative result on nerve conduction testing is still about 8-10%. Given that the anomaly exists 15-31% of the time, a chance still exists of diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome electrically.

Second, in suspected cases of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow or forearm, a reduced-to-absent response would be expected proximally with sparing of the wrist responses, provided that no diffuse severe axon loss has occurred.

To disprove a true ulnar neuropathy, stimulation of the median nerve at the elbow would lead to a wrist response that, when added to the response achieved by stimulating the ulnar nerve at the elbow, would equal a difference of less than 20-25% between elbow and wrist, which is acceptable as normal temporal dispersion. Stimulation of the median nerve at the wrist should lead to a small response; this would represent contributions from ulnar-derived muscles in the thenar eminence.[137, 138, 139, 140]

Riche-Cannieu anastomosis

Another anomaly that can complicate diagnostic studies is the Riche-Cannieu anastomosis (see the image below).

Riche-Cannieu anastomosis is communication between Riche-Cannieu anastomosis is communication between recurrent branch of median nerve and deep branch of ulnar nerve in hand. Although it is present in 77% of hands, it yields highly variable degrees of detectable physiologic difference; in many hands, it contributes little and does not affect diagnostic findings at all. Most common effect is probably to give ulnar innervation to some muscles usually innervated by median nerve, median innervation to muscles usually innervated by ulnar nerve, or both. Most extreme version is so-called all-ulnar hand (very rare). Two examples of confusion this might cause are as follows. (1) Median lesion could cause denervation in typically ulnar muscle, such as adductor digiti minimi (adductor digiti quinti) or first dorsal interosseous muscle. (2) Ulnar lesion could cause denervation in typically median muscle, such as flexor pollicis brevis or abductor pollicis brevis.
Previous
Next

Histologic Studies

Nerve enlargement in cases of entrapment typically occurs proximal to the point of compression.

Nerve compression leads to a cascade of edema, demyelination, inflammation, axonal loss, fibrosis, and remyelination with subsequent thickening of the perineurium and endothelium

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Charles F Guardia, III, MD Instructor in Neurology, Department of Neurology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

Charles F Guardia, III, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Neurology, American Epilepsy Society, Radiological Society of North America, American Academy of Sleep Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Stephen A Berman, MD, PhD, MBA Professor of Neurology, University of Central Florida College of Medicine

Stephen A Berman, MD, PhD, MBA is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Neurology, Phi Beta Kappa

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Nicholas Lorenzo, MD, MHA, CPE Founding Editor-in-Chief, eMedicine Neurology; Founder and CEO/CMO, PHLT Consultants; Chief Medical Officer, MeMD Inc

Nicholas Lorenzo, MD, MHA, CPE is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Association for Physician Leadership, American Academy of Neurology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

Sandeep K Aggarwal, MD Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurology, Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Medical School

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Christina J Azevedo MD Staff Physician, Department of Neurology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

Christina J Azevedo MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Neurology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Paul E Barkhaus, MD Professor, Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin; Director of Neuromuscular Diseases, Milwaukee Veterans Affairs Medical Center

Paul E Barkhaus, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Neurology, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and American Neurological Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Neil A Busis, MD Chief, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Head, Clinical Neurophysiology Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center-Shadyside

Neil A Busis, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Neurology and American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Harris Gellman, MD Consulting Surgeon, Broward Hand Center; Voluntary Clinical Professor of Orthopedic Surgery and Plastic Surgery, Departments of Orthopedic Surgery and Surgery, University of Miami, Leonard M Miller School of Medicine

Harris Gellman, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Medical Acupuncture, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Association, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, and Arkansas Medical Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Mark D Lazarus, MD Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Medical College of Pennsylvania-Hahnemann University, Chief of Shoulder and Elbow Service, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hahnemann University Hospital

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Andrew K Palmer, MD Chair, Professor, Department of Orthopedics, State University of New York-Upstate Medical University

Andrew K Palmer, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Osteopathic College of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Disclosure: Del Palma Orthopedics Salary Board membership

Joseph E Sheppard, MD Professor of Clinical Orthopedic Surgery, Chief of Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, University Physicians Healthcare

Joseph E Sheppard, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, and Orthopaedics Overseas

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Scott P Steinmann, MD Assistant Professor of Orthopedics, Mayo Medical School; Consulting Staff, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic of Rochester

Scott P Steinmann, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, and Minnesota Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Mark Stern, MD Former Chief, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Mark Stern, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Medical Association, California Medical Association, and Western Orthopaedic Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

James R Verheyden, MD Consulting Surgeon, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Orthopedic and Neurosurgical Center of the Cascades

James R Verheyden, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Medical Association, and American Society for Surgery of the Hand

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References
  1. Aguiar PH, Bor-Seng-Shu E, Gomes-Pinto F, Almeida- Leme RJ, Freitas AB, Martins RS, et al. Surgical management of Guyon's canal syndrome, an ulnar nerve entrapment at the wrist: report of two cases. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2001 Mar. 59(1):106-11. [Medline].

  2. Spinner M, Spencer PS. Nerve compression lesions of the upper extremity. A clinical and experimental review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1974 Oct. 46-67. [Medline].

  3. FEINDEL W, STRATFORD J. The role of the cubital tunnel in tardy ulnar palsy. Can J Surg. 1958 Jul. 1(4):287-300. [Medline].

  4. Campbell WW, Pridgeon RM, Riaz G, Astruc J, Sahni KS. Variations in anatomy of the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel: pitfalls in the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve. 1991 Aug. 14(8):733-8. [Medline].

  5. Szabo RM, Steinberg DR. Nerve Entrapment Syndromes in the Wrist. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1994 Mar. 2(2):115-123. [Medline].

  6. Elhassan B, Steinmann SP. Entrapment neuropathy of the ulnar nerve. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007 Nov. 15(11):672-81. [Medline].

  7. Pearce C, Feinberg J, Wolfe SW. Ulnar neuropathy at the wrist. HSS J. 2009 Sep. 5(2):180-3; quiz 184-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  8. Kerr AT. The brachial plexus of nerves in man; the variations in its formation and branches. Am J Anat. 1918. 23:285.

  9. Khoo D, Carmichael SW, Spinner RJ. Ulnar nerve anatomy and compression. Orthop Clin North Am. 1996 Apr. 27(2):317-38. [Medline].

  10. Spinner M, Kaplan EB. The relationship of the ulnar nerve to the medial intermuscular septum in the arm and its clinical significance. Hand. 1976 Oct. 8(3):239-42. [Medline].

  11. Spinner M. Nerve decompression. The Elbow. 1994. 183-206.

  12. O'Driscoll SW, Horii E, Carmichael SW, Morrey BF. The cubital tunnel and ulnar neuropathy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 Jul. 73(4):613-7. [Medline].

  13. Gelberman RH, Yamaguchi K, Hollstien SB, Winn SS, Heidenreich FP Jr, Bindra RR, et al. Changes in interstitial pressure and cross-sectional area of the cubital tunnel and of the ulnar nerve with flexion of the elbow. An experimental study in human cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Apr. 80(4):492-501. [Medline].

  14. Lim BH, Toh CL, Wong HP, Pho RW. Cadaveric study on the vascular anatomy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow--a basis for anterior transposition?. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1992 Sep. 21(5):689-93. [Medline].

  15. Bradshaw DY, Shefner JM. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Neurol Clin. 1999 Aug. 17(3):447-61, v-vi. [Medline].

  16. Feindel W, J Stratford J. Cubital tunnel compression in tardy ulnar palsy. Can Med Assoc J. 1958 Mar 1. 78(5):351-3. [Medline].

  17. Miller RG. The cubital tunnel syndrome: diagnosis and precise localization. Ann Neurol. 1979 Jul. 6(1):56-9. [Medline].

  18. Panas J. Sur une cause peu connue de paralysie du nerf cubital. Archives Generales de Medecine. 1878. 2 (VII Serie):

  19. Murphy JB. Neuroma of the Ulnar Nerve, Result of Cicatricial Compression Following Unrecognised Fracture. The Clinics of John B. Murphy. 1914. 3:369.

  20. Brickner WM. Late Ulnar Nerve Palsy Following Elbow Fracture in the Adult. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Am. 1924. 6:477-481.

  21. Mouchet A. Paralysies tardives du nerfcubital a Ia suite des fractures du condyle externe de l’humerus. Journal de Chirurgie. 1914. 12:437.

  22. Mouchet A. These de docteur, Paris (as cited in Miller, 1924). 1898.

  23. Miller EM. Late Ulnar Nerve Palsy. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics. 1924. 38:37-46.

  24. Buzzard EF. Some varieties of toxic and traumatic ulnar neuritis. Lancet. 1922. 1:317-319.

  25. SARGENT P and BUZZARD EF. Some Varieties of Traumatic and Toxic Ulnar Neuritis. Brain. 1922. 45:133-140.

  26. Stern M, Steinmann SP. Ulnar Nerve Entrapment. Medscape Reference. [Full Text].

  27. Posner MA. Compressive ulnar neuropathies at the elbow: I. Etiology and diagnosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1998 Sep-Oct. 6(5):282-8. [Medline].

  28. Halikis MN, Taleisnik J, Szabo RM. Compression neuropathies of the upper extremity. Chapman MW, ed. Chapman's Orthopaedic Surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. 40-99.

  29. Ochiai N, Honmo J, Tsujino A. Electrodiagnosis in entrapment neuropathy by the arcade of Struthers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Sep. 129-35. [Medline].

  30. Ochiai N, Hayashi T, Ninomiya S. High ulnar nerve palsy caused by the arcade of Struthers. J Hand Surg [Br]. 1992 Dec. 17(6):629-31. [Medline].

  31. Siqueira MG, Martins RS. The controversial arcade of Struthers. Surg Neurol. 2005. 64 Suppl 1:S1:17-20; discussion S1:20-1. [Medline].

  32. Kane E, Kaplan EB, Spinner M. [Observations of the course of the ulnar nerve in the arm]. Ann Chir. 1973 May. 27(5):487-96. [Medline].

  33. Bartels RH, Grotenhuis JA, Kauer JM. The arcade of Struthers: an anatomical study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2003 Apr. 145(4):295-300; discussion 300. [Medline].

  34. Wehrli L, Oberlin C. The internal brachial ligament versus the arcade of Struthers: an anatomical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 Feb. 115(2):471-7. [Medline].

  35. von Schroeder HP, Scheker LR. Redefining the "Arcade of Struthers". J Hand Surg [Am]. 2003 Nov. 28(6):1018-21. [Medline].

  36. Neary D, Eames RA. The pathology of ulnar nerve compression in man. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 1975. 1:69-88.

  37. Kleinman WB. Cubital tunnel syndrome: anterior transposition as a logical approach to complete nerve decompression. J Hand Surg Am. 1999 Sep. 24(5):886-97. [Medline].

  38. Merolla G, Staffa G, Paladini P, Campi F, Porcellini G. Endoscopic approach to cubital tunnel syndrome. J Neurosurg Sci. 2008 Sep. 52(3):93-8. [Medline].

  39. Gellman H. Compression of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: cubital tunnel syndrome. Instr Course Lect. 2008. 57:187-97. [Medline].

  40. Campbell WW. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve. 2000 Apr. 23(4):450-2. [Medline].

  41. Olney RK, Wilbourn AJ, Miller RG. Ulnar neuropathy at or distal to the wrist (abstr). Neurology. 1983. 33(Suppl 2):185.

  42. Olney RK, Hanson M. AAEE case report #15: ulnar neuropathy at or distal to the wrist. Muscle Nerve. 1988 Aug. 11(8):828-32. [Medline].

  43. Watchmaker GP, Lee G, Mackinnon SE. Intraneural topography of the ulnar nerve in the cubital tunnel facilitates anterior transposition. J Hand Surg Am. 1994 Nov. 19(6):915-22. [Medline].

  44. Pechan J, Julis I. The pressure measurement in the ulnar nerve. A contribution to the pathophysiology of the cubital tunnel syndrome. J Biomech. 1975 Jan. 8(1):75-9. [Medline].

  45. Bozentka DJ. Cubital tunnel syndrome pathophysiology. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Jun. 90-4. [Medline].

  46. Dellon AL. Musculotendinous variations about the medial humeral epicondyle. J Hand Surg Br. 1986 Jun. 11(2):175-81. [Medline].

  47. Green JR Jr, Rayan GM. The cubital tunnel: anatomic, histologic, and biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Sep-Oct. 8(5):466-70. [Medline].

  48. Lundborg G, Dahlin LB. Anatomy, function, and pathophysiology of peripheral nerves and nerve compression. Hand Clin. 1996 May. 12(2):185-93. [Medline].

  49. Wilgis EF, Murphy R. The significance of longitudinal excursion in peripheral nerves. Hand Clin. 1986 Nov. 2(4):761-6. [Medline].

  50. Yang SN, Yoon JS, Kim SJ, Kang HJ, Kim SH. Movement of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: a sonographic study. J Ultrasound Med. 2013 Oct. 32(10):1747-52. [Medline].

  51. Yamaguchi K, Sweet FA, Bindra R, Gelberman RH. The extraneural and intraneural arterial anatomy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Jan-Feb. 8(1):17-21. [Medline].

  52. Childress HM. Recurrent ulnar-nerve dislocation at the elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975 May. 168-73. [Medline].

  53. Sunderland S. Nerves and nerve injuries. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Churchhill Livingston; 1987. 728-74.

  54. Sunderland S. Blood supply of the nerves of the upper limb in man. Arch Neurol Psychiatry. 1945. 53:91-115.

  55. Sunderland S. Nerves and Nerve Injuries. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1968. 816-28.

  56. Sunderland S, Hughes ES. Metrical and non-metrical features of the muscular branches of the ulnar nerve. J Comp Neurol. 1946. 85:113.

  57. Dellon AL, Mackinnon SE. Human ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: clinical, electrical, and morphometric correlations. J Reconstr Microsurg. 1988 Apr. 4(3):179-84. [Medline].

  58. Szabo RM. Entrapment and compression neuropathies. Green D, Hotchkiss R, Pederson W, eds. Green’s Operative Hand Surgery. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1999. Vol 2.: 1422-9.

  59. Posner MA. Compressive ulnar neuropathies at the elbow: II. treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1998 Sep-Oct. 6(5):289-97. [Medline].

  60. Upton AR, McComas AJ. The double crush in nerve entrapment syndromes. Lancet. 1973 Aug 18. 2(7825):359-62. [Medline].

  61. Seddon HJ. Surgical Disorders of the Peripheral Nerves. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone; 1972.

  62. Sunderland S. Nerves and Nerve Injuries. 2nd ed. London, England: Churchill Livingstone; 1978. 780-95.

  63. McGOWAN AJ. The results of transposition of the ulnar nerve for traumatic ulnar neuritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1950 Aug. 32-B(3):293-301. [Medline].

  64. Zimmerman NB, Kaye MB, Wilgis EF, Zimmerman RM, Dubin NH. Are standardized patient self-reporting instruments applicable to the evaluation of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 May-Jun. 18(3):463-8. [Medline].

  65. Charness ME. Unique upper extremity disorders of musicians. Millender, ed. Occupational Disorders of the Upper Extremity. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1992. 227-52.

  66. McPherson SA, Meals RA. Cubital tunnel syndrome. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992 Jan. 23(1):111-23. [Medline].

  67. Rettig AC, Ebben JR. Anterior subcutaneous transfer of the ulnar nerve in the athlete. Am J Sports Med. 1993 Nov-Dec. 21(6):836-9; discussion 839-40. [Medline].

  68. Swenson JD, Hutchinson DT, Bromberg M, Pace NL. Rapid onset of ulnar nerve dysfunction during transient occlusion of the brachial artery. Anesth Analg. 1998 Sep. 87(3):677-80. [Medline].

  69. Marin R, McMillian D. Ulnar neuropathy associated with subdermal contraceptive implant. South Med J. 1998 Sep. 91(9):875-8. [Medline].

  70. Masoorli S, Angeles T, Barbone M. Danger points. How to prevent nerve injuries from venipuncture. Nursing. 1998 Sep. 28(9):34-9; quiz 40. [Medline].

  71. Chang C, Shen M. Mononeuropathy multiplex in hemophilia: an electrophysiologic assessment. Eur Neurol. 1998 Jul. 40(1):15-8. [Medline].

  72. Richardson JK, Jamieson SC. Cigarette smoking and ulnar mononeuropathy at the elbow. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Sep. 83(9):730-4. [Medline].

  73. Gay JR, Love JG. Diagnosis and treatment of tardy paralysis of the ulnar nerve. J Bone Jt Surg. 1947. 29:1087-1097.

  74. Chang KSF, Low WD, Chan ST, et al. Enlargement of the ulnar nerve behind the median epicondyle. Anat Rec. 1963. 145:149-153.

  75. Ho S. Factors for Ulnar Neuropathy at the Elbow: A Prospective Study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2006. 87, Issue 11:e15-e16.

  76. Contreras MG, Warner MA, Charboneau WJ, Cahill DR. Anatomy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: potential relationship of acute ulnar neuropathy to gender differences. Clin Anat. 1998. 11(6):372-8. [Medline].

  77. Stewart JD. The variable clinical manifestations of ulnar neuropathies at the elbow. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987 Mar. 50(3):252-8. [Medline].

  78. Osborne GV. The surgical treatment of tardy ulnar neuritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1957. 39B:782.

  79. Beekman R, Wokke JH, Schoemaker MC, Lee ML, Visser LH. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: follow-up and prognostic factors determining outcome. Neurology. 2004 Nov 9. 63(9):1675-80. [Medline].

  80. Mandelli C, Baiguini M. Ulnar nerve entrapment neuropathy at the elbow: decisional algorithm and surgical considerations. Neurocirugia (Astur). 2009 Feb. 20(1):31-8. [Medline].

  81. Terzis JK, Kokkalis ZT. Outcomes of secondary reconstruction of ulnar nerve lesions: our experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Oct. 122(4):1100-10. [Medline].

  82. Terzis JK, Kostopoulos VK. Vascularized ulnar nerve graft: 151 reconstructions for posttraumatic brachial plexus palsy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 Apr. 123(4):1276-91. [Medline].

  83. Bartels RH, Menovsky T, Van Overbeeke JJ, Verhagen WI. Surgical management of ulnar nerve compression at the elbow: an analysis of the literature. J Neurosurg. 1998 Nov. 89(5):722-7. [Medline].

  84. Heithoff SJ. Cubital tunnel syndrome does not require transposition of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg Am. 1999 Sep. 24(5):898-905. [Medline].

  85. Steiner HH, von Haken MS, Steiner-Milz HG. Entrapment neuropathy at the cubital tunnel: simple decompression is the method of choice. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1996. 138(3):308-13. [Medline].

  86. Lluch AL. Release of ulnar nerve compression at the elbow through a transverse incision. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998 Jan-Feb. 7(1):38-42. [Medline].

  87. Heithoff SJ, Millender LH, Nalebuff EA, Petruska AJ Jr. Medial epicondylectomy for the treatment of ulnar nerve compression at the elbow. J Hand Surg Am. 1990 Jan. 15(1):22-9. [Medline].

  88. Kaempffe FA, Farbach J. A modified surgical procedure for cubital tunnel syndrome: partial medial epicondylectomy. J Hand Surg Am. 1998 May. 23(3):492-9. [Medline].

  89. Seradge H, Owen W. Cubital tunnel release with medial epicondylectomy factors influencing the outcome. J Hand Surg Am. 1998 May. 23(3):483-91. [Medline].

  90. Seradge H. Cubital tunnel release and medial epicondylectomy: effect of timing of mobilization. J Hand Surg Am. 1997 Sep. 22(5):863-6. [Medline].

  91. Glowacki KA, Weiss AP. Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997 Mar-Apr. 6(2):89-96. [Medline].

  92. Geutjens GG, Langstaff RJ, Smith NJ, Jefferson D, Howell CJ, Barton NJ. Medial epicondylectomy or ulnar-nerve transposition for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow?. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Sep. 78(5):777-9. [Medline].

  93. Kleinman WB, Bishop AT. Anterior intramuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg Am. 1989 Nov. 14(6):972-9. [Medline].

  94. Asami A, Morisawa K, Tsuruta T. Functional outcome of anterior transposition of the vascularized ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Br. 1998 Oct. 23(5):613-6. [Medline].

  95. Nouhan R, Kleinert JM. Ulnar nerve decompression by transposing the nerve and Z-lengthening the flexor-pronator mass: clinical outcome. J Hand Surg Am. 1997 Jan. 22(1):127-31. [Medline].

  96. Tsujino A, Itoh Y, Hayashi K, Uzawa M. Cubital tunnel reconstruction for ulnar neuropathy in osteoarthritic elbows. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 May. 79(3):390-3. [Medline].

  97. Caliandro P, La Torre G, Padua R, Giannini F, Padua L. Treatment for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Feb 16. 2:CD006839. [Medline].

  98. Dunselman HH, Visser LH. The clinical, electrophysiological and prognostic heterogeneity of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008 Dec. 79(12):1364-7. [Medline].

  99. Iyer V, Thirkannad S. Focal hand dystonia in a patient with ulnar nerve neuropathy at the elbow. Hand (N Y). 2010 Dec. 5(4):453-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  100. Buehler MJ, Thayer DT. The elbow flexion test. A clinical test for the cubital tunnel syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Aug. 213-6. [Medline].

  101. Rayan GM, Jensen C, Duke J. Elbow flexion test in the normal population. J Hand Surg Am. 1992 Jan. 17(1):86-9. [Medline].

  102. Ochi K, Horiuchi Y, Tanabe A, Morita K, Takeda K, Ninomiya K. Comparison of shoulder internal rotation test with the elbow flexion test in the diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2011 May. 36(5):782-7. [Medline].

  103. Hwang K, Jin S, Hwang SH, Lee KM, Han SH. Location of nerve entry points of flexor digitorum profundus. Surg Radiol Anat. 2007 Dec. 29(8):617-21. [Medline].

  104. Jacob A, Moorthy TK, Thomas SV, Sarada C. Compression of the deep motor branch of the ulnar nerve: an unusual cause of pure motor neuropathy and hand wasting. Arch Neurol. 2005 May. 62(5):826-7. [Medline].

  105. Cheng CJ, Mackinnon-Patterson B, Beck JL, Mackinnon SE. Scratch collapse test for evaluation of carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2008 Nov. 33(9):1518-24. [Medline].

  106. Goldman SB, Brininger TL, Schrader JW, Koceja DM. A Review of Clinical Tests and Signs for the Assessment of Ulnar Neuropathy. J Hand Ther. 2009 Feb 1. [Medline].

  107. Rosati M, Martignoni R, Spagnolli G. Clinical validity of the elbow flexion test for the diagnosis of ulnar nerve compression at the cubital tunnel. Acta Orthop Belg. 1998 Dec. 64(4):366-70. [Medline].

  108. Aggarwal SK, Schneider LB, Ahmad BK. Clinical usefulness of ulnar motor responses recording from first dorsal interosseous. Muscle Nerve. 1995. 18(9):1043.

  109. Beekman R, Van Der Plas JP, Uitdehaag BM, Schellens RL, Visser LH. Clinical, electrodiagnostic, and sonographic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve. 2004 Aug. 30(2):202-8. [Medline].

  110. Mondelli M, Aretini A, Rossi S. Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow in diabetes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Apr. 88(4):278-85. [Medline].

  111. Beekman R, Schoemaker MC, Van Der Plas JP, Van Den Berg LH, Franssen H, Wokke JH, et al. Diagnostic value of high-resolution sonography in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Neurology. 2004 Mar 9. 62(5):767-73. [Medline].

  112. Granata G, Martinoli C, Pazzaglia C, Caliandro P, Padua L. Relationships between ultrasonographic, clinical, and neurophysiological findings in ulnar neuropathy at elbow (UNE): author's response to Mauro Mondelli. Neurophysiol Clin. 2009 Feb. 39(1):49-50; author reply 51-2. [Medline].

  113. Shen PC, Chern TC, Wu KC, Tai TW, Jou IM. The assessment of the ulnar nerve at the elbow by ultrasonography in children. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 May. 90(5):657-61. [Medline].

  114. Choi AL, Koh SH, Jun SY, Hwang HS, Cho HW, Jang KM, et al. Lymphoma involving the ulnar nerve: sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2008 Oct. 27(10):1527-31. [Medline].

  115. Ginanneschi F, Filippou G, Milani P, Biasella A, Rossi A. Ulnar nerve compression neuropathy at Guyon's canal caused by crutch walking: case report with ultrasonographic nerve imaging. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Mar. 90(3):522-4. [Medline].

  116. Yoon JS, Walker FO, Cartwright MS. Ultrasonographic swelling ratio in the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Muscle Nerve. 2008 Oct. 38(4):1231-5. [Medline].

  117. Frijlink DW, Brekelmans GJ, Visser LH. Increased nerve vascularization detected by color doppler sonography in patients with ulnar neuropathy at the elbow indicates axonal damage. Muscle Nerve. 2013 Feb. 47(2):188-93. [Medline].

  118. Chiou HJ, Chou YH, Cheng SP, Hsu CC, Chan RC, Tiu CM, et al. Cubital tunnel syndrome: diagnosis by high-resolution ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 1998 Oct. 17(10):643-8. [Medline].

  119. Cartwright MS, Chloros GD, Walker FO, Wiesler ER, Campbell WW. Diagnostic ultrasound for nerve transection. Muscle Nerve. 2007 Jun. 35(6):796-9. [Medline].

  120. Bianchi S. Ultrasound of the Peripheral Nerves. Joint Bone Spine. September 2008. 75:643-649.

  121. Simon NG, Ralph JW, Poncelet AN, Engstrom JW, Chin C, Kliot M. A comparison of ultrasonographic and electrophysiologic 'inching' in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Jun 4. [Medline].

  122. Shen L, Masih S, Patel DB, Matcuk GR Jr. MR anatomy and pathology of the ulnar nerve involving the cubital tunnel and Guyon's canal. Clin Imaging. 2016 Mar-Apr. 40 (2):263-74. [Medline].

  123. Husarik DB, Saupe N, Pfirrmann CW, Jost B, Hodler J, Zanetti M. Elbow nerves: MR findings in 60 asymptomatic subjects--normal anatomy, variants, and pitfalls. Radiology. 2009 Jul. 252(1):148-56. [Medline].

  124. Andreisek G, Crook D, Burg D, Marinek B, Weishaupt D. Peripheral Neuropathies of the Median, Radial and Ulnar Nerves: Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features. Radiographics. 2006. 26:1267-1287.

  125. Vucic S, Coradato DJ, Yiannikas C, Schwartz RS, Shnier RS. Utility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diagnosing Ulnar Neuropathy at the Elbow. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2006. 117:590-595.

  126. Andreisek G et al. Upper Extremity Peripheral Neuropathies: Role and Impact of MRI on Patient Management. Journal of European Radiology. 2008. 18:1953-1961.

  127. Husarik DB et al. Elbow Nerves: MRI Findings in 60 Asymptomatic Subjects - Normal Anatomy, Variants and Pitfalls. Radiology. 2009. 10:2-13.

  128. Britz GW, Haynor DR, Kuntz C, Goodkin R, Gitter A, Maravilla K, et al. Ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow: correlation of magnetic resonance imaging, clinical, electrodiagnostic, and intraoperative findings. Neurosurgery. 1996 Mar. 38(3):458-65; discussion 465. [Medline].

  129. Bäumer P, Pham M, Ruetters M, et al. Peripheral Neuropathy: Detection with Diffusion-Tensor Imaging. Radiology. 2014 May 17. 132837. [Medline].

  130. Jewell D. Case Studies in the Diagnosis of Upper Extremity Pain using MRI. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2007. 20:132-147.

  131. Caliandro P, Foschini M, Pazzaglia C, La Torre G, Aprile I, Granata G, et al. IN-RATIO: a new test to increase diagnostic sensitivity in ulnar nerve entrapment at elbow. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008 Jul. 119(7):1600-6. [Medline].

  132. Bartels RH, Meulstee J, Verhagen WI, Luttikhuis TT. Ultrasound imaging of the ulnar nerve: correlation of preoperative and intraoperative dimensions. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2008 Jul. 110(7):687-90. [Medline].

  133. Yoon JS, Hong SJ, Kim BJ, Kim SJ, Kim JM, Walker FO, et al. Ulnar nerve and cubital tunnel ultrasound in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 May. 89(5):887-9. [Medline].

  134. Toros T, Karabay N, Ozaksar K, Sugun TS, Kayalar M, Bal E. Evaluation of peripheral nerves of the upper limb with ultrasonography: a comparison of ultrasonographic examination and the intra-operative findings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Jun. 91(6):762-5. [Medline].

  135. Ozçakar L, Cakar E, Kiralp MZ, Dinçer U. Static and dynamic sonography: a salutary adjunct to electroneuromyography for cubital tunnel syndrome. Surg Neurol. 2009 Sep. 72(3):311-2. [Medline].

  136. Gutmann L. AAEM minimonograph #2: important anomalous innervations of the extremities. Muscle Nerve. 1993 Apr. 16(4):339-47. [Medline].

  137. Macadam SA, Gandhi R, Bezuhly M, Lefaivre KA. Simple decompression versus anterior subcutaneous and submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2008 Oct. 33(8):1314.e1-12. [Medline].

  138. Nakajima M, Ono N, Kojima T, Kusunose K. Ulnar entrapment neuropathy along the medial intermuscular septum in the midarm. Muscle Nerve. 2009 May. 39(5):707-10. [Medline].

  139. Neary D, Ochoa J, Gilliatt RW. Sub-clinical entrapment neuropathy in man. J Neurol Sci. 1975 Mar. 24(3):283-98. [Medline].

  140. Rempel D, Dahlin L, Lundborg G. Pathophysiology of nerve compression syndromes: response of peripheral nerves to loading. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Nov. 81(11):1600-10. [Medline].

  141. Charles YP, Coulet B, Rouzaud JC, Daures JP, Chammas M. Comparative clinical outcomes of submuscular and subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am. 2009 May-Jun. 34(5):866-74. [Medline].

  142. Gellman H, Campion DS. Modified in situ decompression of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. Hand Clin. 1996 May. 12(2):405-10. [Medline].

  143. Fernandez E, Pallini R, Lauretti L, Scogna A, La Marca F. Neurosurgery of the peripheral nervous system: cubital tunnel syndrome. Surg Neurol. 1998 Jul. 50(1):83-5. [Medline].

  144. Folberg CR, Weiss AP, Akelman E. Cubital tunnel syndrome. Part II: Treatment. Orthop Rev. 1994 Mar. 23(3):233-41. [Medline].

  145. Novak CB, Mackinnon SE. Selection of operative procedures for cubital tunnel syndrome. Hand (N Y). 2009 Mar. 4(1):50-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  146. Keiner D, Gaab MR, Schroeder HW, Oertel J. Comparison of the long-term results of anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve or simple decompression in the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome--a prospective study. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2009 Apr. 151(4):311-5; discussion 316. [Medline].

  147. Dy CJ, Mackinnon SE. Ulnar neuropathy: evaluation and management. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016 Jun. 9 (2):178-84. [Medline].

  148. Toussaint CP, Zager EL. What's new in common upper extremity entrapment neuropathies. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2008 Oct. 19(4):573-81, vi. [Medline].

  149. Coppieters MW, Butler DS. Do 'sliders' slide and 'tensioners' tension? An analysis of neurodynamic techniques and considerations regarding their application. Man Ther. 2008 Jun. 13(3):213-21. [Medline].

  150. Dellon AL. Techniques for successful management of ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1991 Jan. 2(1):57-73. [Medline].

  151. Dellon AL. Review of treatment results for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. J Hand Surg Am. 1989 Jul. 14(4):688-700. [Medline].

  152. Sailer SM. The role of splinting and rehabilitation in the treatment of carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes. Hand Clin. 1996 May. 12(2):223-41. [Medline].

  153. Seror P. Treatment of ulnar nerve palsy at the elbow with a night splint. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Mar. 75(2):322-7. [Medline].

  154. Idler RS. General principles of patient evaluation and nonoperative management of cubital syndrome. Hand Clin. 1996 May. 12(2):397-403. [Medline].

  155. Svernlov B, Larsson M, Rehn K, Adolfsson L. Conservative treatment of the cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2009 Apr. 34(2):201-7. [Medline].

  156. Matei CI, Logigian EL, Shefner JM. Evaluation of patients with recurrent symptoms after ulnar nerve transposition. Muscle Nerve. 2004 Oct. 30(4):493-6. [Medline].

  157. Zhong W, Zhang W, Zheng X, Li S, Shi J. Comparative study of different surgical transposition methods for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. J Int Med Res. 2011. 39(5):1766-72. [Medline].

  158. Yamaguchi K, Sweet FA, Bindra R, Morrey BF, Gelberman RH. The extraosseous and intraosseous arterial anatomy of the adult elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Nov. 79(11):1653-62. [Medline].

  159. Eisen A. Early diagnosis of ulnar nerve palsy. An electrophysiologic study. Neurology. 1974 Mar. 24(3):256-62. [Medline].

  160. Jones RE, Gauntt C. Medial epicondylectomy for ulnar nerve compression syndrome at the elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979 Mar-Apr. 174-8. [Medline].

  161. Kuschner SH. Cubital tunnel syndrome. Treatment by medial epicondylectomy. Hand Clin. 1996 May. 12(2):411-9. [Medline].

  162. Bartels RH, Verhagen WI, van der Wilt GJ, Meulstee J, van Rossum LG, Grotenhuis JA. Prospective randomized controlled study comparing simple decompression versus anterior subcutaneous transposition for idiopathic neuropathy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: Part 1. Neurosurgery. 2005 Mar. 56(3):522-30; discussion 522-30. [Medline].

  163. Biggs M, Curtis JA. Randomized, prospective study comparing ulnar neurolysis in situ with submuscular transposition. Neurosurgery. 2006 Feb. 58(2):296-304; discussion 296-304. [Medline].

  164. Gervasio O, Gambardella G, Zaccone C, Branca D. Simple decompression versus anterior submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve in severe cubital tunnel syndrome: a prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery. 2005. 56(1):108-17; discussion 117. [Medline].

  165. Nabhan A, Ahlhelm F, Kelm J, Reith W, Schwerdtfeger K, Steudel WI. Simple decompression or subcutaneous anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Br. 2005 Oct. 30(5):521-4. [Medline].

  166. Zlowodzki M, Chan S, Bhandari M, Kalliainen L, Schubert W. Anterior transposition compared with simple decompression for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Dec. 89(12):2591-8. [Medline].

  167. Kamat AS, Jay SM, Benoiton LA, Correia JA, Woon K. Comparative outcomes of ulnar nerve transposition versus neurolysis in patients with entrapment neuropathy at the cubital tunnel: a 20-year analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2014 Jan. 156(1):153-7. [Medline].

  168. Boyer M. Simple decompression did not differ from simple decompression plus anterior transposition of the nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Aug. 88(8):1893. [Medline].

  169. Greenwald D, Blum LC 3rd, Adams D, Mercantonio C, Moffit M, Cooper B. Effective surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome based on provocative clinical testing without electrodiagnostics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Apr 15. 117(5):87e-91e. [Medline].

  170. Masear VR, Meyer RD, Pichora DR. Surgical anatomy of the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve. J Hand Surg Am. 1989 Mar. 14(2 Pt 1):267-71. [Medline].

  171. Karthik K, Nanda R, Storey S, Stothard J. Severe ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow: functional outcome after minimally invasive in situ decompression. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2012 Feb. 37(2):115-22. [Medline].

  172. Macnicol MF. The results of operation for ulnar neuritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1979 May. 61-B(2):159-64. [Medline].

  173. Eaton RG, Crowe JF, Parkes JC 3rd. Anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve using a non-compressing fasciodermal sling. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980 Jul. 62(5):820-5. [Medline].

  174. Pribyl CR, Robinson B. Use of the medial intermuscular septum as a fascial sling during anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg Am. 1998 May. 23(3):500-4. [Medline].

  175. Janes PC, Mann RJ, Farnworth TK. Submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Jan. 225-32. [Medline].

  176. Dellon AL. Operative technique for submuscular transposition of the ulnar nerve. Contemp Orthop. 1988. 16:17-24.

  177. Jaddue DA, Saloo SA, Sayed-Noor AS. Subcutaneous vs Submuscular Ulnar Nerve Transposition in Moderate Cubital Tunnel Syndrome. Open Orthop J. 2009 Aug 27. 3:78-82. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  178. Baek GH, Kwon BC, Chung MS. Comparative study between minimal medial epicondylectomy and anterior subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Sep-Oct. 15(5):609-13. [Medline].

  179. Craven PR Jr, Green DP. Cubital tunnel syndrome. Treatment by medial epicondylectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980 Sep. 62(6):986-9. [Medline].

  180. Froimson AI, Anouchi YS, Seitz WH Jr, Winsberg DD. Ulnar nerve decompression with medial epicondylectomy for neuropathy at the elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991 Apr. 200-6. [Medline].

  181. Weirich SD, Gelberman RH, Best SA, Abrahamsson SO, Furcolo DC, Lins RE. Rehabilitation after subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve: immediate versus delayed mobilization. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998 May-Jun. 7(3):244-9. [Medline].

  182. Yoshida A, Okutsu I, Hamanaka I. Endoscopic anatomical nerve observation and minimally invasive management of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2009 Feb. 34(1):115-20. [Medline].

  183. Mariani PP, Golanò P, Adriani E, Llusà M, Camilleri G. A cadaveric study of endoscopic decompression of the cubital tunnel. Arthroscopy. 1999 Mar. 15(2):218-22. [Medline].

  184. Tsai TM, Chen IC, Majd ME, Lim BH. Cubital tunnel release with endoscopic assistance: results of a new technique. J Hand Surg Am. 1999 Jan. 24(1):21-9. [Medline].

  185. Ruchelsman DE, Lee SK, Posner MA. Failed surgery for ulnar nerve compression at the elbow. Hand Clin. 2007 Aug. 23(3):359-71, vi-vii. [Medline].

  186. Bednar MS, Blair SJ, Light TR. Complications of the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Hand Clin. 1994 Feb. 10(1):83-92. [Medline].

  187. Jackson LC, Hotchkiss RN. Cubital tunnel surgery. Complications and treatment of failures. Hand Clin. 1996 May. 12(2):449-56. [Medline].

  188. Broudy AS, Leffert RD, Smith RJ. Technical problems with ulnar nerve transposition at the elbow: findings and results of reoperation. J Hand Surg Am. 1978 Jan. 3(1):85-9. [Medline].

  189. Warner MA, Warner DO, Matsumoto JY, Harper CM, Schroeder DR, Maxson PM. Ulnar neuropathy in surgical patients. Anesthesiology. 1999 Jan. 90(1):54-9. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
Schematic diagram of elbow region, with 5 main sites (as given by Posner) labeled 1-5; other sites and structures are also named. Main regions of interest are circled with pastel-colored arrows. Sites 2 and 3 are close together and cannot be distinguished by means of electromyography and nerve conduction studies. This location is referred to as ulnar (or epicondylar) groove.
Diagram shows ulnar nerve distal to elbow region. Dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve (lavender) branches off main trunk (blue). Although course is not followed in detail after that, lavender region on sensory dermatome diagram shows where this sensory nerve innervates skin. Similarly, palmar cutaneous sensory nerve (yellow) branches off to innervate skin area depicted in yellow. Superficial terminal branch is mostly sensory (see green-colored skin on palmar surface), though it also gives off branch to palmaris brevis. Deep terminal branch has no corresponding skin area, because it is solely motor-innervating muscles shown, as well as others not explicitly depicted. Nerve could be pinched or injured anywhere, but sites labeled I-IV are more commonly involved.
Inching technique used to isolate conduction block in left ulnar nerve. Note significant amplitude drop at 305 mm, which correlates with position 2 cm above medial epicondyle. This is example of supracondylar block. Image courtesy of A S Lorenzo, MD.
Normal median and ulnar patterns are compared with those of 3 commonly recognized types of Martin-Gruber anomaly.
First 3 traces correspond to ulnar compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude during recording at abductor digiti quinti (ADQ) and stimulating at wrist, below elbow, and above elbow, respectively. Fourth trace corresponds to stimulation of median nerve at elbow during recording at ADQ. Although CMAP amplitude is reduced markedly above elbow, this is compensated for by adding response seen after stimulation of median nerve; this represents Martin-Gruber anastomosis.
First 3 traces correspond to stimulation of ulnar nerve during recording at first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle at wrist, below elbow, and above elbow, respectively. Fourth trace corresponds to stimulation of median nerve at elbow during recording at FDI muscle; this represents Martin-Gruber anastomosis.
In those with Martin-Gruber anomaly who have no other significant neuropathy or nerve compression, stimulation of specific nerves at different sites yields differing results. With median nerve, stimulation at elbow yields larger compound muscle action potential (CMAP) at hypothenar muscles, first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle, or thenar muscles (or combination thereof) than does stimulation at wrist. With ulnar nerve, stimulation at wrist yields larger CMAP at hypothenar muscles, FDI muscle, or thenar muscles (or combination thereof) than does stimulation at elbow. In this context, "larger" and "smaller" generally refer to amplitude differences ≥1.0 mV.
Riche-Cannieu anastomosis is communication between recurrent branch of median nerve and deep branch of ulnar nerve in hand. Although it is present in 77% of hands, it yields highly variable degrees of detectable physiologic difference; in many hands, it contributes little and does not affect diagnostic findings at all. Most common effect is probably to give ulnar innervation to some muscles usually innervated by median nerve, median innervation to muscles usually innervated by ulnar nerve, or both. Most extreme version is so-called all-ulnar hand (very rare). Two examples of confusion this might cause are as follows. (1) Median lesion could cause denervation in typically ulnar muscle, such as adductor digiti minimi (adductor digiti quinti) or first dorsal interosseous muscle. (2) Ulnar lesion could cause denervation in typically median muscle, such as flexor pollicis brevis or abductor pollicis brevis.
Table. Types of Martin-Gruber Anastomosis
Type Anatomy Most Characteristic Finding Confirmation Additional Verification Potential Clinical Confusion
I Crossover fibers innervate hypothenar muscles Ulnar stimulation at wrist* produces larger hypothenar CMAP than stimulation at elbow Stimulation of median nerve at elbow† produces response at hypothenar muscles Hypothenar CMAP from ulnar stimulation at wrist is equal to hypothenar CMAP from ulnar stimulation at elbow plus hypothenar CMAP from median stimulation at elbow Smaller response from proximal stimulation could be mistaken for conduction block
II Crossover fibers innervate FDI muscle Ulnar stimulation at wrist produces larger FDI CMAP than stimulation at elbow Stimulation of median nerve at elbow produces response at FDI FDI CMAP from ulnar stimulation at wrist is equal to FDI CMAP from ulnar stimulation at elbow plus FDI CMAP from median stimulation at elbow Usually none, because FDI muscle is not usually recording site; if it is used, conduction block could be suspected, as in type I
III Crossover fibers innervate thenar muscles (typically ADP and FPB) Elbow stimulation of median nerve produces greater thenar response than wrist stimulation Ulnar stimulation produces thenar CMAP with initial positive deflection; it is higher with wrist stimulation than with elbow stimulation For thenar CMAP amplitudes, median elbow stimulation amp is equal to median wrist stimulation amplitude plus ulnar wrist stimulation amplitude minus ulnar elbow stimulation amplitude Can complicate median nerve studies, especially when carpal tunnel syndrome is involved
ADP—adductor pollicis; CMAP—compound motor (or muscle) action potential; FDI—first dorsal interosseous; FPB—flexor pollicis brevis.



*Ulnar stimulation at wrist yields larger CMAP at hypothenar muscles, FDI, or thenar muscles (or sometimes combination of these) than does stimulation at elbow.



†Median stimulation at the elbow yields larger CMAP at hypothenar muscles, FDI, or thenar muscles (or sometimes combination of these) than does stimulation at wrist.



Note: “Larger” and “smaller” generally mean amplitude difference ≥1.0 mV.



Previous
Next
 
 
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.