Search

Conventional electrodiagnosis may localize an ulnar neuropathy to the general region of the elbow. Separating retroepicondylar compression from compression by the humeroulnar aponeurotic arcade from compression by the deep flexorpronator aponeurosis is more difficult. In 35 patients, we compared localization by conventional inching (stimulating stepwise around the elbow searching for focal conduction block or differential slowing) to localization by a more quantitative short segment incremental stimulation (SSIS) technique assessing latency change over consecutive 1 cm segments. Results of percutaneous studies were compared with findings of intraoperative electroneurography. We conclude that SSIS identifies compression levels more accurately than standard inching, and that SSIS and intraoperative electroneurography correlate highly, but not perfectly. Studies confined to a search for conduction block or differential slowing are limited by the low incidence of conduction block in chronic compression neuropathies.

Two processes account for most instances of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: compression in the retroepicondylar groove, and compression by the humeroulnar aponeurotic arcade joining the two heads of the flexor carpi ulnaris. While conventional electrodiagnostic criteria may localize an ulnar neuropathy to the elbow, separating retroepicondylar compression from humeroulnar arcade compression is more difficult. In 130 cadaver elbows, we examined the relationships between the medial epicondyle, flexor carpi ulnaris, and ulnar nerve. The humeroulnar arcade lay from 3 to 20 mm distal to the medial epicondyle, the intramuscular course of the nerve through the flexor carpi ulnaris ranged from 18 to 70 mm, and the nerve exited the flexor carpi ulnaris 28 to 69 mm distal to the medial epicondyle. In 6 specimens, dense fibrous bands bridged directly between the medial epicondyle and the olecranon proximal to the cubital tunnel proper; accessory epitrochleoanconeus muscles were present in 14 specimens: both may cause ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Anatomical variations may contribute to the difficulty in separating causes of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.

At the elbow the ulnar nerve may be compressed either in the retrocondylar groove or at the cubital tunnel. Optimal surgical therapy should be directed at the specific site of involvement. Intraoperative electroneurography performed in conjunction with 19 ulnar nerve explorations helped localize the precise site of compression. Of the primary procedures, abnormality was at the retrocondylar groove in 9, cubital tunnel in 4, both locations in 3, and at an unusual distal point in 1; 12 anterior subcutaneous transpositions, 4 cubital tunnel releases, and 1 distal decompression resulted. Intraoperative studies helped identify residual compression in two patients undergoing reexploration. Although routine electrodiagnosis may localize an ulnar neuropathy to the elbow, reliably separating retrocondylar from cubital tunnel compression is more difficult. Preoperatively, percutaneous serial short increment studies were more accurate than simple "inching" in predicting the site of compression.