Dataset Information

Right radial nerve decompression for refractory radial tunnel syndrome

ABSTRACT:

Background:

Radial tunnel syndrome arises due to compression of the radial nerve through the radial tunnel.[1,5] The radial nerve divides into superficial and deep branches in the forearm. The deep branch travels posteriorly through the heads of the supinator where compression commonly occurs.[3,9,7] This syndrome results in pain in the hand and forearm with no motor weakness.[8] This condition can be treated conservatively with splinting and anti-inflammatory medication.[2,4,6] For cases of refractory radial tunnel syndrome, surgical management can be considered. Herein, we have presented a step-by-step video guide on how to perform a radial nerve decompression with a review of the relevant anatomy and surgical considerations.

Case Description:

A 68-year-old right-handed woman presented to the Mayo Clinic (Scottsdale, AZ) with the right elbow pain which radiated to the forearm causing significant difficulties with daily tasks. She had been dealing with worsening symptoms for 4 months. The patient’s history of gardening and clinical presentation allowed for diagnosis of radial tunnel syndrome. After conservative measures failed and other differential diagnoses were excluded, surgical decompression was recommended to treat her symptoms. The patient’s right arm was marked preoperatively between the brachioradialis and extensor carpi radialis longus (ECRL) muscles. The posterior cutaneous nerve of the forearm was identified which allowed for the determination of the interval between the brachioradialis and ECRL. Separation of the two muscles allowed for the identification of the radial sensory nerve. A nerve stimulator was used to confirm the sensory nature of this nerve. The nerve to the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) was identified and retracted with a vessel loop. Dorsal to the nerve to the ECRB is the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN), which was identified and retracted with a vessel loop. The fascia of the ECRB was divided both longitudinally and transversely and the supinator below was identified. The supinator muscle was carefully divided to further decompress the PIN. Informed consent for publication of this material was obtained from the patient.

Conclusion:

The patient tolerated the procedure well and reported significantly reduced pain at 7-month follow-up. To the best of our knowledge, video tutorials on this procedure have not been published. This video can serve as an educational guide for peripheral nerve specialists dealing with similar lesions.

SUBMITTER: Singh R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8571413 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceCarpal tunnel release (CTR) technique may influence the likelihood of revision surgery. Prior studies of revision CTR following endoscopic CTR (ECTR) compared with open CTR (OCTR) have been limited by sample size and duration of follow-up.ObjectiveTo estimate the incidence of revision CTR following ECTR compared with OCTR in a national cohort.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the US Veterans Health Administration. Participants included all adults (age ≥18 years) undergoing at least 1 outpatient CTR from October 1, 1999, to May 20, 2021. Data were analyzed from May 21, 2021, to November 27, 2023.ExposureIndex CTR technique.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was time to revision CTR, defined as repeat ipsilateral CTR during the study period. Secondary outcomes were indications for revision, findings during revision, and additional procedures performed during revision.ResultsAmong 134 851 wrists from 103 455 patients (92 510 [89.4%] male; median [IQR] age, 62 [53-70] years) undergoing at least 1 CTR, 1809 wrists underwent at least 1 revision at a median (IQR) of 2.5 (1.0-3.8) years. In competing-risks analysis, the cumulative incidence of revision was 1.06% (95% CI, 0.99%-1.12%) at 5 years and 1.59% (95% CI, 1.51%-1.67%) at 10 years. ECTR was associated with increased hazard of revision CTR compared with OCTR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.34-1.81; P < .001). The risk difference for revision CTR associated with ECTR compared with OCTR was 0.57% (95% CI, 0.31%-0.84%) at 5 years (number needed to harm, 176) and 0.72% (95% CI, 0.36%-1.07%) at 10 years (number needed to harm, 139). Regardless of index CTR technique, the most common indication for revision was symptom recurrence (1062 wrists [58.7%]). A reconstituted transverse carpal ligament (TCL) was more common after ECTR compared with OCTR, whereas scarring of the overlying tissues and of the median nerve itself were more common following OCTR. Incomplete transverse-carpal-ligament release was observed in 251 of the wrists undergoing revision CTR (13.94%) and was more common among revisions following ECTR (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.11-2.37; P = .01).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of revision CTR in the Veterans Health Administration, ECTR was associated with increased risk of revision compared with OCTR, but the absolute risk was low regardless of technique. Intraoperative findings at revision varied significantly according to index CTR technique.