The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Volume 89, Issue 5

Current Concepts Review | May 01, 2007

The Ulnar Nerve in Elbow Trauma

Robert Shin, MD¹; David Ring, MD¹

¹ Massachusetts General Hospital, Yawkey Center, Suite 2100, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114. E-mail address for D. Ring: dring@partners.org

View Disclosures and Other Information

Disclosure: In support of their research for or preparation of this work, one or more of the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or grants in excess of $10,000 from the AO Foundation, Small Bone Innovations, Smith and Nephew, Wright Medical Technology, and Biomet. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007 May 01;89(5):1108-1116. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00594

5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Article

Comments (0)

text A A A

Extract

The prevalence of ulnar nerve dysfunction after elbow injury is unknown because authors of published investigations have inadequately differentiated among acute injury-related, acute surgery-related, and delayed (subacute or chronic) ulnar neuropathies and these retrospective case series have not included careful evaluation of ulnar nerve function. Ulnar neuropathy is well documented after distal humeral fracture, but it can also develop following any complex elbow trauma. The ulnar nerve should be identified and protected during the treatment of a bicolumnar fracture of the distal part of the humerus, but current data are inconclusive regarding the value of routine anterior transposition of the nerve. Although most delayed ulnar neuropathies present at a relatively late stage with weakness, with or without muscle atrophy, improved motor strength may be observed in some patients many years after ulnar nerve decompression. Ulnar nerve decompression and transposition are becoming an integral part of many posttraumatic reconstructive elbow procedures, but most recommendations for management of the ulnar nerve are based on retrospective reviews, anecdotal reports, and expert opinion.

Figures in this Article

Ulnar neuropathy is well documented after distal humeral fracture, but it can also develop following any complex elbow trauma. Image Not Available

The ulnar nerve should be identified and protected during the treatment of a bicolumnar fracture of the distal part of the humerus, but current data are inconclusive regarding the value of routine anterior transposition of the nerve. Image Not Available

Although most delayed ulnar neuropathies present at a relatively late stage with weakness, with or without muscle atrophy, improved motor strength may be observed in some patients many years after ulnar nerve decompression. Image Not Available

Ulnar nerve decompression and transposition are becoming an integral part of many posttraumatic reconstructive elbow procedures, but most recommendations for management of the ulnar nerve are based on retrospective reviews, anecdotal reports, and expert opinion.

Ulnar neuropathy is well documented after distal humeral fracture, but it can also develop following any complex elbow trauma.

The ulnar nerve is susceptible to compressive neuropathy at several anatomical sites at the elbow joint^1-4. Elbow trauma places the nerve at risk for direct injury, operative injury, and subsequent compressive neuropathy. Optimal management of the ulnar nerve during operative treatment of an elbow injury is commonly discussed and debated, particularly with respect to the operative treatment of fractures of the distal part of the humerus^5-7. The role of ulnar nerve dysfunction in posttraumatic stiffness and pain is also being increasingly recognized^8-10. This paper reviews the published scientific data and current opinion available to guide patient care, with particular emphasis on areas where more data are needed.

Epidemiology

The prevalence of acute and chronic ulnar nerve dysfunction after elbow trauma has not been documented definitively. Acute injury-related ulnar nerve palsy is uncommon in association with fractures of the distal part of the humerus and the olecranon (including fracture-dislocations of the olecranon), but it has been described as occurring in up to 10% of elbow dislocations^11,12. This number seems too high, and the 1% prevalence of acute ulnar nerve palsy associated with elbow dislocation reported by Galbraith and McCullough¹³ is more consistent with our experience. A possible explanation for the difference in these numbers is the failure to distinguish among acute ulnar nerve palsy, postoperative ulnar nerve palsy, and delayed-onset ulnar nerve dysfunction, with the 10% figure reflecting all types of ulnar nerve dysfunction encountered from the time of injury through the long-term follow-up period.

Robinson et al. reviewed several series of adult patients with a fracture of the distal part of the humerus (320 patients in total) and found an overall rate of ulnar neuropathy of 12.3% (range, 0% to 50.9%), with an average of 5.4% (range, 0% to 15%) of these deficits being permanent¹⁴. The wide ranges and the failure to distinguish among the different types of ulnar nerve dysfunction limit the utility and interpretation of these findings.

We cannot accurately describe the prevalence of acute injury-related ulnar nerve palsy, postoperative ulnar nerve palsy, and delayed-onset ulnar nerve palsy on the basis of the available published data. Future researchers should distinguish among these types of ulnar nerve dysfunction and define the prevalence of the problem according to these specific injury types.

Anatomy

The ulnar nerve is derived from the C8 and T1 nerve roots. It is a terminal branch of the medial cord of the brachial plexus. In the midportion of the arm, it passes from the anterior to the posterior part of the arm, piercing the intermuscular septum approximately 10 cm above the medial epicondyle¹⁵. The nerve then passes through a fascial tunnel bounded laterally by the internal brachial ligament and inferiorly by an accessory origin of the medial head of the triceps from the medial intermuscular septum. The latter structure is commonly referred to as the arcade of Struthers, although it appears that Struthers never described it^16-18. The arcade of Struthers averages 3.75 cm in length, ending approximately 3 to 10 cm above the medial epicondyle¹⁹. The reported prevalence of an arcade of Struthers is extremely variable, ranging between 25% (sixteen of sixty-four)²⁰ and 70% (fourteen of twenty)²¹, indicating that its nature as a structure is disputed and difficult to characterize. The ulnar nerve passes under the medial epicondyle and enters the cubital tunnel beneath the fibrous arch bridging the two heads of the flexor carpi ulnaris (or the Osborne ligament)^1,2,4. In the forearm, the ulnar nerve passes beneath the aponeurosis between the ulnar and humeral heads of the flexor carpi ulnaris.

The blood supply to the ulnar nerve at the elbow is derived from three main pedicles, the superior ulnar collateral artery proximally, the inferior ulnar collateral artery in the midportion, and the posterior recurrent ulnar artery distally. These three vessels form an anastomotic extraneural network intimately associated with the ulnar nerve²². The superior ulnar collateral artery arises from the brachial artery about 18 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle. The inferior ulnar collateral artery arises from the brachial artery about 6.6 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle. The posterior recurrent ulnar artery arises from the ulnar artery about 7.3 cm distal to the medial epicondyle. In the study by Yamaguchi et al., twenty of twenty-two elbows did not have a direct anastomotic connection between the superior ulnar collateral artery and the posterior recurrent ulnar artery and fourteen of the twenty-two elbows did not have a communication between the superior ulnar collateral artery and the inferior ulnar collateral artery²². This is an important finding because division of the inferior ulnar collateral artery during anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve may devascularize a portion of the nerve. A study of ulnar nerve transposition in monkeys demonstrated a significant decrease (p < 0.05) in regional blood flow that took up to three days to return to normal²³. Some have claimed that careful dissection can often preserve this blood supply during transposition²⁴. Others have emphasized that there is an internal blood supply that is preserved during transposition^22,25.

The ulnar nerve does not innervate any structures in the upper arm. There are zero to three articular branches to the elbow, and these may begin proximal to the medial epicondyle²⁶. The first branch to the flexor carpi ulnaris is found an average of 15 mm distal to the epicondylar axis²⁷ and usually arises from the radial aspect of the nerve²⁶. Typically, there are two to five branches to the flexor carpi ulnaris and the flexor digitorum profundus combined, occasionally with only one branch to the flexor carpi ulnaris²⁷. Care must be taken to protect the first motor branch, in case it is the only branch to the flexor carpi ulnaris. Intraneural dissection of the first motor branch to the flexor carpi ulnaris can be performed safely and is occasionally required to fully mobilize the ulnar nerve.

The dimensions of the ulnar nerve change with elbow flexion and extension. The cross-sectional shape changes from round to elliptical with increasing flexion, as the nerve flattens against the medial epicondyle²⁸. The cross-sectional area of the nerve decreases up to 50%²⁹ and the nerve elongates about 5 mm with full flexion^30,31. The mean intraneural pressure is approximately 45% greater than the mean extraneural pressure with full elbow flexion, suggesting that intraneural pressure is the result of both traction and flattening (external pressure) of the nerve²⁹.

Pathogenesis of Ulnar Neuropathy after Trauma

The ulnar nerve can be damaged by the initial injury or iatrogenically during operative treatment, or it may become symptomatic in a delayed fashion secondary to postoperative swelling, scarring, and thickening in its fibroosseous tunnel. It is important to evaluate peripheral nerve function carefully prior to any operation for the treatment of an elbow injury in order to distinguish injury-related from surgery-related palsies.

Postoperative nerve palsies are often the result of traction on the nerve. Traction on the nerve should be carefully monitored and minimized. Retractors and loops around the nerve should be used with care, and assistants should be kept attentive. Although it can be argued that a wider loop such as a Penrose drain will apply less force per unit area than a smaller loop, our opinion is that it is not the pressure from the loop that places the nerve at risk, but rather the overall traction on the nerve. We believe that one is less likely to apply excessive traction through a smaller, more flexible loop such as a vessel loop.

Postoperative palsy can occur even when the nerve is handled gently. Furthermore, we have observed several postoperative ulnar nerve palsies after the nerves were transposed in the injury setting but none after transposition for treatment of idiopathic ulnar neuropathy. Given that some anatomical studies have suggested that a segment of the ulnar nerve may be devascularized during transposition, we have speculated that a traumatized nerve may be more susceptible to injury, by means of devascularization, than a chronically compressed nerve. More research is needed to better understand the pathogenesis of, and risk factors for, postoperative ulnar nerve palsy in the setting of acute elbow trauma.

Delayed compressive neuropathies may be related to (1) implants placed on the medial column of the distal part of the humerus; (2) osteophytes, and exuberant fracture callus³², or heterotopic ossification (in which the ulnar nerve is occasionally entrapped)^33,34; (3) constriction of the nerve by an incompletely divided flexor pronator aponeurosis or arcade of Struthers, or over an incompletely released medial intermuscular septum or medial triceps fascia (arcade of Struthers) after transposition; and (4) thickening or scarring of the normal fibroosseous tunnel in which the ulnar nerve lies^35-40.

Delayed ulnar neuropathies have also been described in association with varus or valgus malunion of humeral fractures in children. In this setting, the ulnar nerve dysfunction has been referred to as a tardy ulnar nerve palsy⁴¹^,⁴². Treatment recommendations may include humeral osteotomy in addition to ulnar nerve transposition, but the influence of the osteotomy on the ulnar neuropathy is debatable. Given the relationship between elbow trauma and subsequent ulnar neuropathy in the absence of varus or valgus deformity, the role of such deformity in the pathogenesis of ulnar nerve dysfunction can be questioned.

Examination and Diagnostic Tests

In patients with an ulnar neuropathy, numbness usually involves the small finger and the ulnar half of the ring finger. Sensory disturbance can be objectively and quantitatively evaluated with use of tests of threshold sensibility (Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing)⁴³ and innervation density (two-point discrimination testing). Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing assesses the ability of the patient to sense pressure from filaments that bend at a known pressure. The normal value for this test is 2.83 MN (marking number), which is equivalent to ten times the log of the force in milligrams—in this case 68 mg. Patients who can detect only larger monofilaments have decreased sensation to light touch. Two-point discrimination can be assessed with a finger-blanching technique, in which two blunt points separated by a known distance are either held in one spot (static testing)⁴⁴ or kept in motion (dynamic testing)⁴⁵. The upper limit of normal has been described as 6 mm for the former⁴⁶ and as 4 mm for the latter⁴⁷. If sensation is normal on the dorsal ulnar aspect of the hand and wrist but not in the small finger, ulnar nerve compression at the wrist should be suspected.

Atrophy and weakness reflect advanced nerve damage. Atrophy of the first dorsal interosseous muscle is usually more apparent than atrophy of the other intrinsic hand muscles innervated by the ulnar nerve, such as those in the hypothenar eminence and the other interosseous muscles. The strength of the first dorsal interosseous muscle can be tested by placing the patient's extended index finger in maximum radial deviation, having him or her resist forceful ulnar deviation, and comparing the resistance with that of the other hand. Weakness of the abductor digiti minimi and the flexor digitorum profundus to the small finger should also be assessed. The relative strength of the abductor digiti minimi can be tested conveniently with the confrontational test, in which the small fingers of both hands are held in abduction with maximal force, the small fingers are brought together, and, starting at approximately a 90° angle to each other, are pushed against one another. The test result is negative when both small fingers give way and collapse toward the ring fingers simultaneously. Unilateral giving-way is a positive result, suggesting weakness⁴⁸.

Static sensory or motor deficits may be absent in the early stages of compressive ulnar neuropathy. Symptoms can be provoked by sustained elbow flexion (the so-called elbow flexion test⁴⁹), sustained pressure over the nerve in the cubital tunnel⁵⁰, or tapping over the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel (to elicit the Tinel sign⁵¹). Novak et al. compared patients with electrodiagnostically confirmed idiopathic ulnar nerve compression with asymptomatic controls and found that a greater duration of elbow flexion or pressure over the nerve as well as the combination of both compression and flexion increased the sensitivity of provocative testing with little decrease in specificity (Table I)⁵⁰. These findings are likely to apply to delayed posttraumatic ulnar neuropathy as well.

View Larger

TABLE I Comparison of Sensitivities, Specificities, and Predictive Values of Provocative Tests for Ulnar Neuropathy*

	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive Predictive Value	Negative Predictive Value
Tinel sign	0.70	0.98	0.94	0.87
Flexion test
30 seconds	0.32	0.99	0.93	0.74
60 seconds	0.75	0.99	0.97	0.89
Pressure test
30 seconds	0.55	0.98	0.92	0.81
60 seconds	0.89	0.98	0.95	0.95
Combined pressure and flexion test
30 seconds	0.91	0.97	0.93	0.96
60 seconds	0.98	0.95	0.91	0.99

Reproduced, with modification, from: Novak CB, Lee GW, Mackinnon SE, Lay L. Provocative testing for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1994;19:817-20. Reprinted with permission.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE I Comparison of Sensitivities, Specificities, and Predictive Values of Provocative Tests for Ulnar Neuropathy*

	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive Predictive Value	Negative Predictive Value
Tinel sign	0.70	0.98	0.94	0.87
Flexion test
30 seconds	0.32	0.99	0.93	0.74
60 seconds	0.75	0.99	0.97	0.89
Pressure test
30 seconds	0.55	0.98	0.92	0.81
60 seconds	0.89	0.98	0.95	0.95
Combined pressure and flexion test
30 seconds	0.91	0.97	0.93	0.96
60 seconds	0.98	0.95	0.91	0.99

Reproduced, with modification, from: Novak CB, Lee GW, Mackinnon SE, Lay L. Provocative testing for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1994;19:817-20. Reprinted with permission.

Neurophysiological testing provides objective confirmation of suspected ulnar neuropathy. Electromyography is used to evaluate motor nerve dysfunction. This test measures the electrical activity of a motor unit. Evidence of fibrillations suggests denervation of the motor end plates. Positive sharp waves appear approximately ten to twenty days after nerve injury and are also characterized by rest activity and increased insertional activity. Polyphasic motor unit potentials represent reinnervation and motor nerve recovery. Transient suppression of electromyographic activity may be demonstrated by noxious digital nerve stimuli. This period of electrical silence is known as a cutaneous silent period. Its presence is normal and indicates intact small fibers (A-delta), which are typically spared in compression neuropathy. Cutaneous silent periods become elongated with more severe nerve involvement. Most importantly, cutaneous silent periods confirm residual nerve continuity, which may not be apparent with use of other electromyographic parameters^52,53.

Nerve conduction studies are used to evaluate sensory and motor nerve conduction amplitudes and velocities. Changes in sensory conduction are more sensitive indicators of neuropathy and correlate more directly with findings on physical examination. With both sensory and motor nerve conduction studies, the earliest sign of nerve dysfunction is a decrease in amplitude. This is closely followed by a decrease in motor velocity. Either absolute velocity across the elbow of <50 ms or slowing of velocity by >10 m/s compared with the value in the contralateral, unaffected arm suggests ulnar nerve compression. Additional features include an above-the-elbow to below-the-elbow segment being >10 ms slower than the below-the-elbow to wrist segment, a decrease in compound muscle action potential negative peak amplitude from below the elbow to above the elbow of >20%, and a substantial change in compound muscle action potential configuration at the above-the-elbow site compared with the below-the-elbow site⁵⁴. Distal sensory and motor latencies of >2.4 and >2.6 ms, respectively, are also considered abnormal.

Classification

McGowan⁵⁵ classified ulnar nerve dysfunction into three grades. Grade 1 represents a minimal lesion with no detectable motor weakness of the hand. Grade 2 is characterized by an intermediate lesion in which a sensory disturbance is accompanied by interosseous muscle weakness and some wasting. Grade 3 is a severe lesion with profound weakness of the interossei.

In 1990, Gabel and Amadio³⁹ reviewed the results of reoperations done because of failed cubital tunnel releases in thirty patients and devised a 9-point scoring system to rate ulnar neuropathy preoperatively and postoperatively. The score is based on the summation of scores on 0 to 3-point scales for pain, sensory deficits, and motor deficits (Table II), with 9 points representing no evidence of neuropathy and 0 points representing the most severe neuropathy.

View Larger

TABLE II System Described by Gabel and Amadio³⁹ for Rating Ulnar Neuropathy

Score	Pain	Sensory	Motor
0	Needs narcotics regularly	2-pt. discrim. >10 mm, anesthesia	Intrinsic paralysis with claw deformity (muscle grade, absent or trace; McGowan grade III)
1	Intermittent medication; constant pain	2-pt. discrim. >6 mm; constant numbness	Obvious atrophy (muscle grade, fair or poor; McGowan grade II)
2	Intermittent pain	2-pt. discrim. normal; intermittent paresthesias	Weaker than on contralateral side (muscle grade, good)
3	No pain	No numbness	No weakness (muscle grade, normal; McGowan grade I)

Add to My JBJS

TABLE II System Described by Gabel and Amadio³⁹ for Rating Ulnar Neuropathy

Score	Pain	Sensory	Motor
0	Needs narcotics regularly	2-pt. discrim. >10 mm, anesthesia	Intrinsic paralysis with claw deformity (muscle grade, absent or trace; McGowan grade III)
1	Intermittent medication; constant pain	2-pt. discrim. >6 mm; constant numbness	Obvious atrophy (muscle grade, fair or poor; McGowan grade II)
2	Intermittent pain	2-pt. discrim. normal; intermittent paresthesias	Weaker than on contralateral side (muscle grade, good)
3	No pain	No numbness	No weakness (muscle grade, normal; McGowan grade I)

In 1989, Dellon proposed a similar grading system⁵⁶. The severity of the lesion is graded as mild, moderate or severe, depending on sensory and motor findings as well as the results of provocative maneuvers (Table III). Sensory findings include the presence of paresthesias, response to vibratory stimuli, and two-point discrimination. Motor findings include atrophy and the presence of objective weakness. Provocative tests include the elbow flexion test and the Tinel sign.

View Larger

TABLE III Classification of Ulnar Nerve Dysfunction According to Dellon⁵⁶*

	Mild	Moderate	Severe
Sensory
Paresthesia	Intermittent	Intermittent	Persistent
Vibration	Increased	Normal/decreased	Decreased
Two-point discrimination	Normal	Normal	Abnormal
Motor
Weakness	Subjective clumsiness, loss of coordination	Objective weakness of pinch and/or grip strength	Objective weakness of pinch and/or grip strength
Atrophy	No	No	Yes
Tests†
Elbow flexion	±	+	+
Tinel	±	+	+
Finger crossing	Normal	Normal/abnormal	Abnormal

Reproduced, with modification, from: Dellon AL. Review of treatment results for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1989;14:688-700. Reprinted with permission. †+ = present, - = absent, and ± = present or absent.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE III Classification of Ulnar Nerve Dysfunction According to Dellon⁵⁶*

	Mild	Moderate	Severe
Sensory
Paresthesia	Intermittent	Intermittent	Persistent
Vibration	Increased	Normal/decreased	Decreased
Two-point discrimination	Normal	Normal	Abnormal
Motor
Weakness	Subjective clumsiness, loss of coordination	Objective weakness of pinch and/or grip strength	Objective weakness of pinch and/or grip strength
Atrophy	No	No	Yes
Tests†
Elbow flexion	±	+	+
Tinel	±	+	+
Finger crossing	Normal	Normal/abnormal	Abnormal

It is also useful to classify ulnar nerve dysfunction according to its time of onset in relation to the traumatic event. It is important to distinguish among acute injury-related ulnar neuropathies, postoperative surgery-related ulnar neuropathies, and delayed compressive ulnar neuropathies. Delayed ulnar neuropathy can be either subacute⁵⁷ (onset within three months after the injury) or chronic (onset more than three months after the injury). Subacute ulnar neuropathy usually presents as loss of elbow motion and increasing pain with or without hand stiffness after an initial period during which pain was decreasing and motion was recovering well. Chronic ulnar neuropathy—whether posttraumatic or idiopathic—usually presents with advanced findings, with the patient having adapted to the symptoms. The surgeon should be mindful of the potential for ulnar nerve dysfunction at all stages of recovery from elbow trauma and remember to evaluate ulnar nerve function at each office visit.

Natural History

While injury-related nerve palsies usually resolve, recovery from postoperative ulnar nerve palsies can be prolonged and incomplete. In our experience, patients with diabetes mellitus have been at particular risk for delayed or incomplete recovery⁵⁸.

In our opinion, subacute and chronic ulnar neuropathies and idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome are slowly and inevitably progressive, as has been increasingly observed to be the case with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome. Furthermore, we believe that nonoperative treatment can help manage symptoms in the short term but cannot be relied on to prevent progression of the disease⁵⁹. There is better evidence to support these concepts with regard to idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome, but it is reasonable to expect other compressive peripheral neuropathies to behave in a similar fashion. In a clinical trial comparing operative treatment and splint immobilization in 176 patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome, 41% of those treated with the splint required surgery within eighteen months after enrollment⁶⁰. In addition, several studies of idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome have demonstrated either bilateral presentation or eventual development of nerve dysfunction on the contralateral side, suggesting that it is a bilateral disease^61,62. Finally, a study of twins showed that genetics alone accounts for at least half of the risk of carpal tunnel syndrome developing⁶³.

It is plausible that chronic idiopathic peripheral neuropathies reflect progressive structural compression that is genetically mediated and inevitable. It is also plausible that posttraumatic ulnar neuropathy is structural and progressive. These speculations must be confirmed by scientific data and may be relatively academic since most cases of posttraumatic ulnar neuropathy present at a fairly advanced stage with atrophy and weakness. Nonetheless, we recommend regular follow-up of patients with posttraumatic ulnar neuropathy if nonoperative treatment is chosen.

Management of the Ulnar Nerve During Operative Treatment of Elbow Injury

Bicolumnar Distal Humeral Fractures

Among elbow fractures, bicolumnar fractures of the distal part of the humerus are associated with the highest rate of both acute ulnar nerve palsy and delayed-onset chronic ulnar neuropathy following operative treatment^5-7,64-79 (see Appendix). Surgeons handle the nerve in a variety of ways. All recommend initial exposure and protection of the nerve. Some advocate placing the nerve back into its epicondylar groove after internal fixation is completed^7,76. Others transpose the nerve only when it is contused or if it lies directly on the medial plate^6,77,78. Most support routine anterior transposition of the nerve^5,79-84.

The exact prevalence of postoperative ulnar nerve palsy cannot be stated accurately for the reasons mentioned earlier, but it may be as high as 13%^5-7,67,70-79. We are beginning to analyze our experience, in which we have encountered what may be seven new iatrogenic postoperative ulnar nerve palsies in thirty-two patients (a rate of 22%) with a bicolumnar distal humeral fracture in whom a complete subcutaneous ulnar nerve transposition had been performed. If these ulnar nerve palsies were a result of the complete anterior transposition (i.e., caused by handling, retraction, or devascularization of the nerve), this would be a substantial disadvantage of that procedure, but our data are provisional and it is unclear if the rate of palsy is lower after protection of the nerve without transposition. On the other hand, it is not clear that complex fractures of the distal part of the humerus can be treated without moving the ulnar nerve out of the cubital tunnel.

A few authors reporting on retrospective case series of patients who had undergone internal fixation of a bicolumnar fracture of the distal part of the humerus have commented on the handling of the ulnar nerve^{5-7,72,73,77,79,80}. The occurrence of postoperative nerve palsy is inconsistent, and no definitive treatment recommendations can be made. Kundel et al.⁷ reviewed the cases of seventy-seven patients in whom transposition was performed only when implants were placed in the groove below the medial epicondyle (in thirteen cases). They reported a 27% prevalence of injury or surgery-related ulnar neuropathy with this technique. In a study of fifty-five patients in whom transposition was performed only when there were preexisting ulnar nerve symptoms, Gupta and Khanchandani⁶ reported that 5% had an acute postoperative ulnar nerve palsy. Wang et al.⁵ advocated routine subcutaneous transposition, reporting no ulnar nerve complications in twenty patients who had been so treated.

The ulnar nerve is routinely transposed when bicolumnar fractures of the distal part of the humerus are treated with linked total elbow arthroplasty. Acute postoperative ulnar nerve dysfunction has been reported in 0% to 26% of patients^64-66,68,69.

Capitellar and/or Trochlear Fractures and Elbow Fracture-Dislocations

Complex articular fractures of the distal part of the humerus that do not involve the medial column (capitellar/trochlear fractures and lateral column fractures) and most elbow fracture-dislocations can be treated without the need to identify or protect the ulnar nerve. Acute postoperative ulnar nerve palsy is very uncommon with these injuries, but patients are at risk for delayed-onset ulnar neuropathy. One of us (D.R.) and colleagues described twenty-one patients with a complex articular fracture of the distal part of the humerus (complex capitellar and trochlear fractures), two of whom had a subacute ulnar neuropathy after an initial uneventful recovery⁸⁰. Both patients had resolution of symptoms subsequent to an ulnar nerve release, performed at six weeks postoperatively in one patient and at eight weeks in the other.

Fracture of the olecranon has been associated with a prevalence of postoperative ulnar neuropathy of 6% (two of thirty-one)⁸⁵ and prevalences of delayed-onset ulnar neuropathy of 2% (one of fifty-two⁸⁶) to 22% (four of eighteen³²). We are in the process of reviewing the results of our treatment of dislocations of the elbow with associated intra-articular fractures and have noted a rate of delayed ulnar neuropathy of approximately 11% within two to five years postoperatively; the rate has been 15% after treatment of so-called terrible triad injuries (dislocation with fractures of the radial head and coronoid process).

Because patients with these fracture types are at risk for delayed ulnar neuropathy, we have started to consider identification, prophylactic in situ decompression, and protection of the ulnar nerve during operative treatment of these injuries. More data are needed regarding the relative advantages and disadvantages of routine in situ release of the ulnar nerve, but we have encountered few sequelae in the short term. This situation may be analogous to that of unlinked total elbow arthroplasty, which was associated with a substantial rate of ulnar neuropathy^87-95 before routine ulnar nerve decompression was added to the operative protocol.

Management of Ulnar Nerve Dysfunction

Postinjury or Postoperative Nerve Palsy

Nerve palsies identified within the first two weeks after an injury or operation are most likely related to traumatic or operative injury to the nerve. Sometimes it appears that a nerve that was intact at the initial postoperative examination becomes dysfunctional within the next few days, but in our opinion this is unlikely. It seems more likely that the initial postoperative examination was incomplete or inaccurate than that the status of the ulnar nerve changed over a few days. Consequently, if the surgeon is confident that the nerve is not lacerated or entrapped by an implant or injury, then a postoperative palsy should be managed with observation; otherwise the nerve should be explored.

Subacute Ulnar Neuropathy

Subacute ulnar nerve dysfunction⁹⁶ can present as a sudden deterioration of function after an initial period of good recovery. It was described as secondary ulnar nerve palsy by Broca and Mouchet in 1899⁵⁷, and its occurrence was recently reemphasized by Faierman et al.⁹⁶. Suggestive symptoms and signs can be confirmed with electrophysiological testing. The clinical presentation can be similar to that of complex regional pain syndrome, with pain out of proportion to what is expected and pain with light touch or even small movements. This is an uncommon condition, and it improves after ulnar nerve transposition⁹⁶.

Chronic Ulnar Neuropathy

Chronic ulnar nerve dysfunction after trauma is often not recognized until advanced changes such as static numbness, weakness, and atrophy are present. Operative treatment is warranted after the lesion is confirmed and documented with electrodiagnostic testing. The variety of operative techniques described for the treatment of idiopathic ulnar neuropathy can usually be considered for posttraumatic ulnar neuropathy as well. No clear superiority of one technique over another has been demonstrated. In the unusual situation in which chronic ulnar neuropathy develops even though the nerve had been transposed anteriorly in the subcutaneous tissues at the time of the operation, one can consider repeat decompression with or without submuscular placement of the nerve⁹⁷.

McKee et al. reviewed the cases of twenty patients (twenty-one elbows) in whom chronic ulnar neuropathy had been treated with ulnar nerve decompression as part of an elbow reconstruction^98,99. At an average of thirty-two months after the operation, the patients frequently had a return of intrinsic muscle function and had a high rate of satisfaction. There were seventeen good-to-excellent results, two fair results, and two poor results. Ten patients had a McGowan grade-3 lesion preoperatively, and none had one postoperatively. The average Gabel and Amadio score increased from 3.2 to 6.5 points. There was no worsening of intrinsic strength. Of seventeen patients with preoperative weakness, twelve recovered grade-5 power, four recovered grade-4 power, and one still had grade-3 power. The average satisfaction score was 8.0 of 10 points.

Barrios et al. directly compared the results of neurolysis and transposition of the ulnar nerve in patients with either idiopathic or posttraumatic cubital tunnel syndrome¹⁰⁰. The results were slightly better (as measured with a scoring system and categorical ratings based on the Nerve Committee of the British Medical Research Council¹⁰¹) in the patients with idiopathic ulnar neuropathy. A greater number of patients with idiopathic ulnar neuropathy had complete recovery. The duration of symptoms did not affect the outcome¹⁰⁰.

Ulnar Neuropathy Associated with Elbow Contracture

Chronic ulnar nerve dysfunction is often seen in conjunction with elbow stiffness, with or without arthrosis. In fact, ulnar nerve dysfunction can be considered part of the disease process of primary osteoarthritis of the elbow, with a prevalence as high as 54% (twenty-seven of fifty patients) in one study¹⁰². Antuna et al. reported ulnar nerve dysfunction in 15% (seven) of forty-six patients prior to an ulnohumeral arthroplasty for primary elbow arthritis and 28% (thirteen) of the forty-six postoperatively and recommended routine transposition of the ulnar nerve in elbows with <100° of preoperative flexion as well as in patients with preoperative ulnar nerve symptoms¹⁰³. While it is appropriate to consider stiff or arthritic elbows as being at risk for the development of ulnar nerve dysfunction after an operation that restores greater flexion to the elbow, postrelease ulnar neuropathy can also occur in patients with good preoperative flexion; therefore, definitive criteria for decompressing the ulnar nerve at the time of an elbow contracture release cannot be made at this time.

Ulnar Neuropathy Associated with an Ununited Fracture of the Distal Part of the Humerus

Decompression and anterior subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve has become an integral part of the operative treatment of an ununited fracture of the distal part of the humerus^100,104,105. Helfet et al. reported preoperative ulnar nerve dysfunction in 30% of fifty-two patients¹⁰⁴. McKee et al. reviewed the cases of thirteen patients with distal humeral malunion or nonunion, nine of whom had ulnar neuropathy before operative treatment of the malunion or nonunion⁹⁹. External neurolysis and subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve was performed in all nine patients, and all had a decrease in the ulnar nerve symptoms. Ulnar nerve transposition addresses preoperative nerve dysfunction, diminishes the potential for new ulnar neuropathy due to increased motion, and increases the safety of the procedure in most patients.

Recalcitrant Ulnar Neuropathy

Persistent ulnar nerve dysfunction after traumatic or operative injury or after treatment of a subacute or chronic ulnar neuropathy is commonplace and may not respond well to treatment. Entrapment of the ulnar nerve in substantial scar tissue after trauma and several operations can make repeat decompression or transposition difficult. It is reasonable to consider whether the nerve was incompletely released, but objective support for this etiology in the form of a very focal problem or progressive worsening demonstrated by electrophysiological testing may be necessary to distinguish treatable from untreatable nerve dysfunction. In the absence of a clear point of residual compression, nerve release surgery alone may not decrease symptoms or improve nerve function³⁹.

Salvage techniques such as use of silicone sheaths or vein-wrapping^39,106-108 to address scarring around the nerve have been described primarily for the treatment of pain and paresthesias, but two-point discrimination and electromyographic findings may also improve. These techniques are challenging and remain controversial. In theory, they minimize adhesions between the surrounding tissues and the nerve¹⁰⁷. Promising early results have been reported^39,106-108 by the advocates of these techniques, but additional research is needed to fully assess their value. Implantable peripheral nerve stimulators have also been used for chronic pain believed to be due to recalcitrant ulnar neuropathy, but these devices should be considered experimental^109-111.

Overview

Although definitive data are not available, current expert opinion supports identification and protection of the ulnar nerve during the treatment of a bicolumnar fracture of the distal part of the humerus and other types of complex elbow injury. The decision to transpose the ulnar nerve may be based in part on the injury type and be done when implants are applied to the medial epicondyle and medial side of the trochlea. Authors of future studies should systematically document nerve status and differentiate among injury-related, postoperative, subacute, and chronic ulnar nerve dysfunction. Ulnar nerve decompression is an important aspect of posttraumatic elbow reconstruction and can improve both elbow and hand function.

Appendix

A table presenting information from previous studies on posttraumatic ulnar nerve palsy is available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site at jbjs.org (go to the article citation and click on "Supplementary Material") and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).

References

Feindel W, Stratford J. Cubital tunnel compression in tardy ulnar palsy. Can Med Assoc J. 1958;78: 351-3.78351 1958 [PubMed]

Wadsworth TG. The external compression syndrome of the ulnar nerve at the cubital tunnel. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1977;124: 189-204.124189 1977

Morrey BF, An KN. Functional anatomy of the ligaments of the elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;201: 84-90.20184 1985 [PubMed]

Osborne GV. The surgical treatment of tardy ulnar neuritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1957;39: 782.39782 1957

Wang KC, Shih HN, Hsu KY, Shih CH. Intercondylar fractures of the distal humerus: routine anterior subcutaneous transposition of the ulnar nerve in a posterior operative approach. J Trauma. 1994;36: 770-3.36770 1994 [CrossRef]

Gupta R, Khanchandani P. Intercondylar fractures of the distal humerus in adults: a critical analysis of 55 cases. Injury. 2002;33: 511-5.33511 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Kundel K, Braun W, Wieberneit J, Ruter A. Intraarticular distal humerus fractures. Factors affecting functional outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;332: 200-8.332200 1996 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Cohen MS, Hastings H 2nd. Post-traumatic contracture of the elbow. Operative release using a lateral collateral ligament sparing approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80: 805-12.80805 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Morrey BF. The posttraumatic stiff elbow. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;431: 26-35.43126 2005 [PubMed]

Placzek JD, Boyer MI, Gelberman RH, Sopp B, Goldfarb CA. Nerve decompression for complex regional pain syndrome type II following upper extremity surgery. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2005;30: 69-74.3069 2005 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Watson Jones R. Primary nerve lesions in injuries of the elbow and wrist. J Bone Joint Surg. 1930;12: 121-40.12121 1930

Mehlhoff TL, Noble PC, Bennett JB, Tullos HS. Simple dislocation of the elbow in the adult. Results after closed treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70: 244-9.70244 1988 [PubMed]

Galbraith KA, McCullough CJ. Acute nerve injury as a complication of closed fractures or dislocations of the elbow. Injury. 1979;11: 159-64.11159 1979 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Robinson CM, Hill RM, Jacobs N, Dall G, Court-Brown CM. Adult distal humeral metaphyseal fractures: epidemiology and results of treatment. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17: 38-47.1738 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Wehrli L, Oberlin C. The internal brachial ligament versus the arcade of Struthers: an anatomical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115: 471-7.115471 2005 [PubMed][CrossRef]

De Jesus R, Dellon AL. Historic origin of the "Arcade of Struthers". J Hand Surg [Am]. 2003;28: 528-31.28528 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Vesley DG, Killian JT. Arcades of Struthers. J Med Assoc State Ala. 1983;52: 33-4, 36-7.5233 1983 [PubMed]

von Schroeder HP, Scheker LR. Redefining the "Arcade of Struthers". J Hand Surg [Am]. 2003;28: 1018-21.281018 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Siqueira MG, Martins RS. The controversial arcade of Struthers. Surg Neurol. 2005;64Suppl 1: S1:17-21.64S1 2005

Dellon AL. Musculotendinous variations about the medial humeral epicondyle. J Hand Surg [Br]. 1986;11: 175-81.11175 1986 [PubMed]

Kane E, Kaplan EB, Spinner M. [Observations of the course of the ulnar nerve in the arm]. Ann Chir. 1973;27: 487-96. Multiple languages.27487 1973

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;8: 17-21.817 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Ogata K, Manske PR, Lesker PA. The effect of surgical dissection on regional blood flow to the ulnar nerve in the cubital tunnel. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;193: 195-8.193195 1985 [PubMed]

Prevel CD, Matloub HS, Ye Z, Sanger JR, Yousif NJ. The extrinsic blood supply of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: an anatomic study. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1993;18: 433-8.18433 1993 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Kunzel KH, Fischer C, Anderl H. The ulnar nerve as vascularized nerve transplant. Part I: Anatomy: arterial vascular supply. J Reconstr Microsurg. 1986;2: 175-9.2175 1986 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Gonzalez MH, Lotfi P, Bendre A, Mandelbroyt Y, Lieska N. The ulnar nerve at the elbow and its local branching: an anatomic study. J Hand Surg [Br]. 2001;26: 142-4.26142 2001 [PubMed]

Marur T, Akkin SM, Alp M, Demirci S, Yalcin L, Ogut T, Akgun I. The muscular branching patterns of the ulnar nerve to the flexor carpi ulnaris and flexor digitorum profundus muscles. Surg Radiol Anat. 2005;27: 322-6.27322 2005 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Patel VV, Heidenreich FP Jr, Bindra RR, Yamaguchi K, Gelberman RH. Morphologic changes in the ulnar nerve at the elbow with flexion and extension: a magnetic resonance imaging study with 3-dimensional reconstruction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7: 368-74.7368 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Gelberman RH, Yamaguchi K, Hollstien SB, Winn SS, Heidenreich FP Jr, Bindra RR, Hsieh P, Silva MJ. 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;80: 492-501.80492 1998 [PubMed]

Apfelberg DB, Larson SJ. Dynamic anatomy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1973;51: 79-81.5179 1973 [PubMed]

Schuind FA, Goldschmidt D, Bastin C, Burny F. A biomechanical study of the ulnar nerve at the elbow. J Hand Surg [Br]. 1995;20: 623-7.20623 1995

Ishigaki N, Uchiyama S, Nakagawa H, Kamimura M, Miyasaka T. Ulnar nerve palsy at the elbow after surgical treatment for fractures of the olecranon. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13: 60-5.1360 2004 [CrossRef]

McAuliffe JA, Wolfson AH. Early excision of heterotopic ossification about the elbow followed by radiation therapy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79: 749-55.79749 1997 [PubMed]

Viola RW, Hanel DP. Early "simple" release of posttraumatic elbow contracture associated with heterotopic ossification. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1999;24: 370-80.24370 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Bednar MS, Blair SJ, Light TR. Complications of the treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome. Hand Clin. 1994;10: 83-92.1083 1994

Rogers MR, Bergfield TG, Aulicino PL. The failed ulnar nerve transposition. Etiology and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;269: 193-200.269193 1991

Kleinman WB. Revision ulnar neuroplasty. Hand Clin. 1994;10: 461-77.10461 1994 [PubMed]

Jackson LC, Hotchkiss RN. Cubital tunnel surgery. Complications and treatment of failures. Hand Clin. 1996;12: 449-56.12449 1996 [PubMed]

Gabel GT, Amadio PC. Reoperation for failed decompression of the ulnar nerve in the region of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72: 213-9.72213 1990

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;3: 85-9.385 1978 [PubMed]

Gay JR, Love JG. Diagnosis and treatment of tardy paralysis of the ulnar nerve. Based on a study of 100 cases. J Bone Joint Surg. 1947;29: 1087-97.291087 1947

Holmes JC, Hall JE. Tardy ulnar nerve palsy in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;135: 128-31.135128 1978 [PubMed]

Semmes J, Weinstein S, Ghent L, Teuber HL. Somatosensory changes after penetrating brain wounds in man. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1960. 1960

Moberg E. Two-point discrimination test. A valuable part of hand surgical rehabilitation, e.g. in tetraplegia. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1990;22: 127-34.22127 1990 [PubMed]

Dellon AL, Mackinnon SE, Crosby PM. Reliability of two-point discrimination measurements. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1987;12: 693-6.12693 1987

DeGroot J. Correlative neuroanatomy. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange; 1991. 1991

Kets CM, Van Leerdam ME, Van Brakel WH, Deville W, Bertelsmann FW. Reference values for touch sensibility thresholds in healthy Nepalese volunteers. Lepr Rev. 1996;67: 28-38.6728 1996 [PubMed]

Buschbacher R. Side-to-side confrontational strength-testing for weakness of the intrinsic muscles of the hand. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79: 401-5.79401 1997 [PubMed]

Buehler MJ, Thayer DT. The elbow flexion test. A clinical test for the cubital tunnel syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;233: 213-6.233213 1988

Novak CB, Lee GW, Mackinnon SE, Lay L. Provocative testing for cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1994;19: 817-20.19817 1994 [CrossRef]

Hoffmann P, Buck-Gramcko D, Lubahn JD. The Hoffmann-Tinel sign. 1915. J Hand Surg [Br]. 1993;18: 800-5.18800 1993 [PubMed]

Kofler M, Frohlich K, Saltuari L. Preserved cutaneous silent periods in severe entrapment neuropathies. Muscle Nerve. 2003;28: 711-4.28711 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Aurora SK, Ahmad BK, Aurora TK. Silent period abnormalities in carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve. 1998;21: 1213-5.211213 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Practice parameter for electrodiagnostic studies in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: summary statement. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American Academy of Neurology, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Muscle Nerve. 1999;22: 408-11.22408 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

McGowan AJ. The results of transposition of the ulnar nerve for traumatic ulnar neuritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1950;32: 293-301.32293 1950

Dellon AL. Review of treatment results for ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1989;14: 688-700.14688 1989 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Sunderland S. Nerves and nerve injuries. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1978. 1978

Kennedy JM, Zochodne DW. Impaired peripheral nerve regeneration in diabetes mellitus. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2005;10: 144-57.10144 2005 [CrossRef]

Mowlavi A, Andrews K, Lille S, Verhulst S, Zook EG, Milner S. The management of cubital tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of clinical studies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106: 327-34.106327 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Gerritsen AA, de Vet HC, Scholten RJ, Bertelsmann FW, de Krom MC, Bouter LM. Splinting vs surgery in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288: 1245-51.2881245 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Padua L, Padua R, Nazzaro M, Tonali P. Incidence of bilateral symptoms in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Br]. 1998;23: 603-6.23603 1998

Bagatur AE, Zorer G. The carpal tunnel syndrome is a bilateral disorder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83: 655-8.83655 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Hakim AJ, Cherkas L, El Zayat S, MacGregor AJ, Spector TD. The genetic contribution to carpal tunnel syndrome in women: a twin study. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;47: 275-9.47275 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Morrey BF, Bryan RS. Complications of total elbow arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;170: 204-12.170204 1982 [PubMed]

Kamineni S, Morrey BF. Distal humeral fractures treated with noncustom total elbow replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86: 940-7.86940 2004

Brumfield RH Jr., Kuschner SH, Gellman H, Redix L, Stevenson DV. Total elbow arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1990;5: 359-63.5359 1990 [CrossRef]

Tyllianakis M, Panagopoulos A, Papadopoulos AX, Kaisidis A, Zouboulis P. Functional evaluation of comminuted intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus (AO type C). Long term results in twenty-six patients. Acta Orthop Belg. 2004;70: 123-30.70123 2004 [PubMed]

Cobb TK, Morrey BF. Total elbow arthroplasty as primary treatment for distal humeral fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79: 826-32.79826 1997 [PubMed]

Hildebrand KA, Patterson SD, Regan WD, MacDermid JC, King GJ. Functional outcome of semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82: 1379-86.821379 2000 [PubMed]

Waddell JP, Hatch J, Richards R. Supracondylar fractures of the humerus—results of surgical treatment. J Trauma. 1988;28: 1615-21.281615 1988 [PubMed][CrossRef]

McCarty LP, Ring D, Jupiter JB. Management of distal humerus fractures. Am J Orthop. 2005;34: 430-8.34430 2005 [PubMed]

Shetty S. Surgical treatment of T and Y fractures of the distal humerus. Injury. 1983;14: 345-8.14345 1983 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Soon JL, Chan BK, Low CO. Surgical fixation of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus in adults. Injury. 2004;35: 44-54. Erratum in: Injury. 2004;35:954.3544 2004 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Sodergard J, Sandelin J, Bostman O. Postoperative complications of distal humeral fractures. 27/96 adults followed up for 6 (2-10) years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992;63: 85-9.6385 1992 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Kinik H, Atalar H, Mergen E. Management of distal humerus fractures in adults. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999;119: 467-9.119467 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Holdsworth BJ, Mossad MM. Fractures of the adult distal humerus. Elbow function after internal fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72: 362-5.72362 1990

Jupiter JB, Neff U, Holzach P, Allgower M. Intercondylar fractures of the humerus. An operative approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67: 226-39.67226 1985

Helfet DL, Schmeling GJ. Bicondylar intraarticular fractures of the distal humerus in adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;292: 26-36.29226 1993

Gofton WT, Macdermid JC, Patterson SD, Faber KJ, King GJ. Functional outcome of AO type C distal humeral fractures. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2003;28: 294-308.28294 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Ring D, Jupiter JB, Gulotta L. Articular fractures of the distal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85: 232-8.85232 2003

Ring D, Jupiter JB. Complex fractures of the distal humerus and their complications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8: 85-97.885 1999 [CrossRef]

Jupiter JB, Barnes KA, Goodman LJ, Saldana AE. Multiplane fracture of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7: 216-20.7216 1993 [CrossRef]

Jupiter JB. Complex fractures of the distal part of the humerus and associated complications. Instr Course Lect. 1995;44: 187-98.44187 1995

Perry CR, Gibson CT, Kowalski MF. Transcondylar fractures of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 1989;3: 98-106.398 1989 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Finsen V, Lingaas PS, Storro S. AO tension-band osteosynthesis of displaced olecranon fractures. Orthopedics. 2000;23: 1069-72.231069 2000 [PubMed]

Rettig AC, Waugh TR, Evanski PM. Fracture of the olecranon: a problem of management. J Trauma. 1979;19: 23-8.1923 1979 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Ljung P, Jonsson K, Rydholm U. Short-term complications of the lateral approach for non-constrained elbow replacement. Follow-up of 50 rheumatoid elbows. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77: 937-42.77937 1995

Burnett R, Fyfe IS. Souter-Strathclyde arthroplasty of the rheumatoid elbow. 23 cases followed for 3 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1991;62: 52-4.6252 1991 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Davis RF, Weiland AJ, Hungerford DS, Moore JR, Volenec-Dowling S. Non-constrained total elbow arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;171: 156-60.171156 1982 [PubMed]

Ewald FC, Jacobs MA. Total elbow arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;182: 137-42.182137 1984 [PubMed]

Ewald FC, Simmons ED Jr., Sullivan JA, Thomas WH, Scott RD, Poss R, Thornhill TS, Sledge CB. Capitellocondylar total elbow replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75: 498-507. Erratum in: J Bone Joint Am. 1993;75:1881.75498 1993

Joshi RP, Yanni O, Gallannaugh SC. A modified posterior approach to the elbow for total elbow replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8: 606-11.8606 1999 [CrossRef]

Trancik T, Wilde AH, Borden LS. Capitellocondylar total elbow arthroplasty. Two-to eight-year experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;223: 175-80.223175 1987 [PubMed]

Weiland AJ, Weiss AP, Wills RP, Moore JR. Capitellocondylar total elbow replacement. A long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71: 217-22.71217 1989 [PubMed]

van der Lugt JC, Geskus RB, Rozing PM. Primary Souter-Strathclyde total elbow prosthesis in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86: 465-73.86465 2004 [PubMed]

Faierman E, Wang J, Jupiter JB. Secondary ulnar nerve palsy in adults after elbow trauma: a report of two cases. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2001;26: 675-8.26675 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Caputo AE, Watson HK. Subcutaneous anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve for failed decompression of cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2000;25: 544-51.25544 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

McKee MD, Jupiter JB, Bosse G, Goodman L. Outcome of ulnar neurolysis during post-traumatic reconstruction of the elbow. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80: 100-5.80100 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

McKee M, Jupiter J, Toh CL, Wilson L, Colton C, Karras KK. Reconstruction after malunion and nonunion of intra-articular fractures of the distal humerus. Methods and results in 13 adults. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76: 614-21.76614 1994 [PubMed]

100

Barrios C, Ganoza C, de Pablos J, Canadell J. Posttraumatic ulnar neuropathy versus non-traumatic cubital tunnel syndrome: clinical features and response to surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1991;110: 44-8.11044 1991 [CrossRef]

101

Seddon HJ [editor]. Peripheral nerve injuries. Medical Research Council Special Report Series. No. 282. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office; 1954. p 82-85.82 1954

102

Oka Y. Debridement arthroplasty for osteoarthrosis of the elbow: 50 patients followed mean 5 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71: 185-90.71185 2000 [CrossRef]

103

Antuna SA, Morrey BF, Adams RA, O'Driscoll SW. Ulnohumeral arthroplasty for primary degenerative arthritis of the elbow: long-term outcome and complications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84: 2168-73.842168 2002

104

Helfet DL, Kloen P, Anand N, Rosen HS. Open reduction and internal fixation of delayed unions and nonunions of fractures of the distal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85: 33-40.8533 2003

105

Ring D, Gulotta L, Jupiter JB. Unstable nonunions of the distal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85: 1040-6.851040 2003 [CrossRef]

106

Vardakas DG, Varitimidis SE, Sotereanos DG. Findings of exploration of a vein-wrapped ulnar nerve: report of a case. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2001;26: 60-3.2660 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

107

Varitimidis SE, Riano F, Sotereanos DG. Recalcitrant post-surgical neuropathy of the ulnar nerve at the elbow: treatment with autogenous saphenous vein wrapping. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2000;16: 273-7.16273 2000 [CrossRef]

108

Varitimidis SE, Vardakas DG, Goebel F, Sotereanos DG. Treatment of recurrent compressive neuropathy of peripheral nerves in the upper extremity with an autologous vein insulator. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2001;26: 296-302.26296 2001 [CrossRef]

109

Nashold BS Jr, Goldner JL, Mullen JB, Bright DS. Long-term pain control by direct peripheral-nerve stimulation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64: 1-10.641 1982 [PubMed]

110

Monsivais JJ, Monsivais DB. Managing chronic neuropathic pain with implanted anesthetic reservoirs. Hand Clin. 1996;12: 781-6.12781 1996

111

Campbell JN, Long DM. Peripheral nerve stimulation in the treatment of intractable pain. J Neurosurg. 1976;45: 692-9.45692 1976 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Topics

fracture ; elbow region ; humerus ; neurons ; ulnar nerve ; ulnar neuropathies ; elbow injuries

First Page Preview

View Large

Username

Password

Access for Patients

Forgot Password?

Have a subscription to the print edition?

Not a Subscriber?

Buy this Article

Get online access for 30 days for $35

New to JBJS?

Subscribe to the online edition for 30 days for $75

Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.

Have a subscription to the print edition?

Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.

Activate your online account now

Forgot your password?

Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

Username:*

Email Address:*

Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

References

Accreditation Statement

These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

CME Activities Associated with This Article

Submit a Comment

Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field

Comment Author(s) * (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)

Example: John Doe

Affiliation & Institution*

Comment Title*

Comment*

Cancel

Print
PDF
Email

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link (good for 5 days) to 'The Ulnar Nerve in Elbow Trauma'.
Your Name:*
Example: John Doe

Email Address:* CC Me:
Enter your valid email address. Example: jdoe@example.com

Recipient's Email Address:*

Separate multiple email address with semi-colons (up to 5).

Subject:* 's The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery: 'The Ulnar Nerve in Elbow Trauma'
Subject for your email.

Message:

(Optional, message will truncate at 1000 characters)

Processing your request... Please Wait...

Copyright © in the material you requested is held by The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Inc. (unless otherwise noted). This email ability is provided as a courtesy, and by using it you agree that that you are requesting the material solely for personal, non-commercial use, and that it is subject to Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Inc.'s Terms of Use. The information provided in order to email this topic will not be used to send unsolicited email, nor will it be furnished to third parties. Please refer to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Inc.'s Privacy Policy for further information.

Copyright © The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Inc. All rights reserved.
Share
Get Citation

Robert Shin, David Ring; The Ulnar Nerve in Elbow Trauma. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2007 May;89(5):1108-1116.

Download citation file:

RIS (Zotero)

EndNote

BibTex

Medlars

ProCite

RefWorks

Reference Manager

Copyright © The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Rights & Permissions
Article Alerts

Processing your request... Please Wait.
Submit a Comment
Data Supplements