Ergonomic positioning or equipment for treating carpal tunnel syndrome

Occupational Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: a scoping review of causes, mechanisms, diagnosis, and intervention strategies

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) has traditionally been viewed as a specialized medical condition. However, its escalating prevalence among professionals across a multitude of industries has sparked substantial interest in recent years. This review aims to delve into CTS as an occupational disease, focusing on its epidemiological patterns, risk factors, symptoms, and management options, particularly emphasizing its relevance in professional environments. The complex interaction of anatomical, biomechanical, and pathophysiological factors that contribute to the development of CTS in different work settings underlines the critical role of ergonomic measures, prompt clinical identification, and tailored treatment plans in reducing its effects. Nevertheless, the challenges presented by existing research, including diverse methodologies and definitions, highlight the need for more unified protocols to thoroughly understand and tackle this issue. There's a pressing demand for more in-depth research into the epidemiology of CTS, its injury mechanisms, and the potential role of targeted medicine. Moreover, recognizing CTS's wider ramifications beyond personal health is essential. The economic burden associated with CTS-related healthcare costs, productivity losses, and compensation claims can significantly impact both businesses and the broader society. Therefore, initiatives aimed at preventing CTS through workplace interventions, education, and early intervention programs not only benefit the affected individuals but also contribute to the overall well-being of the workforce and economic productivity. By fostering a collaborative approach among healthcare professionals, employers, policymakers, and other stakeholders, we can strive towards creating safer and healthier work environments while effectively managing the challenges posed by CTS in occupational settings.

Splinting for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compression neuropathy of the median nerve causing pain and numbness and tingling typically in the thumb, index and middle finger. It sometimes results in muscle wasting, diminished sensitivity and loss of dexterity. Splinting the wrist (with or without the hand) using an orthosis is usually offered to people with mild-to-moderate findings, but its effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of splinting for people with CTS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 12 December 2021, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials were included if the effect of splinting could be isolated from other treatment modalities. The comparisons included splinting versus no active treatment (or placebo), splinting versus another disease-modifying non-surgical treatment, and comparisons of different splint-wearing regimens. We excluded studies comparing splinting with surgery or one splint design with another. We excluded participants if they had previously undergone surgical release.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed study risk of bias and the certainty in the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE approach, according to standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials randomising 1937 adults with CTS. The trials ranged from 21 to 234 participants, with mean ages between 42 and 60 years. The mean duration of CTS symptoms was seven weeks to five years. Eight studies with 523 hands compared splinting with no active intervention (no treatment, sham-kinesiology tape or sham-laser); 20 studies compared splinting (or splinting delivered along with another non-surgical intervention) with another non-surgical intervention; and three studies compared different splinting regimens (e.g. night-time only versus full time). Trials were generally at high risk of bias for one or more domains, including lack of blinding (all included studies) and lack of information about randomisation or allocation concealment in 23 studies. For the primary comparison, splinting compared to no active treatment, splinting may provide little or no benefits in symptoms in the short term (< 3 months). The mean Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) (scale 1 to 5, higher is worse; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 1 point) was 0.37 points better with splint (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 better to 0.08 worse; 6 studies, 306 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared with no active treatment. Removing studies with high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of randomisation or allocation concealment supported our conclusion of no important effect (mean difference (MD) 0.01 points worse with splint; 95% CI 0.20 better to 0.22 worse; 3 studies, 124 participants). In the long term (> 3 months), we are uncertain about the effect of splinting on symptoms (mean BCTQ SSS 0.64 better with splinting; 95% CI 1.2 better to 0.08 better; 2 studies, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Splinting probably does not improve hand function in the short term and may not improve hand function in the long term. In the short term, the mean BCTQ Functional Status Scale (FSS) (1 to 5, higher is worse; MCID 0.7 points) was 0.24 points better (95% CI 0.44 better to 0.03 better; 6 studies, 306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment. In the long term, the mean BCTQ FSS was 0.25 points better (95% CI 0.68 better to 0.18 worse; 1 study, 34 participants; low-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment. Night-time splinting may result in a higher rate of overall improvement in the short term (risk ratio (RR) 3.86, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.51; 1 study, 80 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain if splinting decreases referral to surgery, RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.58; 3 studies, 243 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that splinting may have a higher rate of adverse events, which were transient, but the 95% CIs included no effect. Seven of 40 participants (18%) reported adverse effects in the splinting group and 0 of 40 participants (0%) in the no active treatment group (RR 15.0, 95% CI 0.89 to 254.13; 1 study, 80 participants).  There was low- to moderate-certainty evidence for the other comparisons: splinting may not provide additional benefits in symptoms or hand function when given together with corticosteroid injection (moderate-certainty evidence) or with rehabilitation (low-certainty evidence); nor when compared with corticosteroid (injection or oral; low certainty), exercises (low certainty), kinesiology taping (low certainty), rigid taping (low certainty), platelet-rich plasma (moderate certainty), or extracorporeal shock wave treatment (moderate certainty). Splinting for 12 weeks may not be better than six weeks, but six months of splinting may be better than six weeks of splinting in improving symptoms and function (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether splinting benefits people with CTS. Limited evidence does not exclude small improvements in CTS symptoms and hand function, but they may not be clinically important, and the clinical relevance of small differences with splinting is unclear. Low-certainty evidence suggests that people may have a greater chance of experiencing overall improvement with night-time splints than no treatment. As splinting is a relatively inexpensive intervention with no plausible long-term harms, small effects could justify its use, particularly when patients are not interested in having surgery or injections. It is unclear if a splint is optimally worn full time or at night-time only and whether long-term use is better than short-term use, but low-certainty evidence suggests that the benefits may manifest in the long term.

Local corticosteroid injection versus placebo for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a very common clinical syndrome manifested by signs and symptoms of irritation of the median nerve at the carpal tunnel in the wrist. Direct and indirect costs of CTS are substantial, with estimated costs of two billion US dollars for CTS surgery in the USA in 1995 alone. Local corticosteroid injection has been used as a non-surgical treatment for CTS many years, but its effectiveness is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of corticosteroids injected in or around the carpal tunnel for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome compared to no treatment or a placebo injection.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search Methods. The searches were 7 June 2020 and 26 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of adults with CTS that included at least one comparison group of local injection of corticosteroid (LCI) into the wrist and one group that received a placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. improvement in symptoms at up to three months of follow-up. Our secondary outcomes were 2. functional improvement, 3. improvement in symptoms at greater than three months of follow-up, 4. improvement in neurophysiological parameters, 5. improvement in imaging parameters, 6. requirement for carpal tunnel surgery, 7. improvement in quality of life and 8.

ADVERSE EVENTS

We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials with 994 participants/hands with CTS. Only nine studies (639 participants/hands) had useable data quantitatively and in general, these studies were at low risk of bias except for one quite high-risk study. The trials were conducted in hospital-based clinics across North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. All trials used participant-reported outcome measures for symptoms, function and quality of life. There is probably an improvement in symptoms measured at up to three months of follow-up favouring LCI (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.94 to -0.59; 8 RCTs, 579 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Up to six months this was still evident favouring LCI (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.28; 4 RCTs, 234 participants/hands; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably an improvement in function measured at up to three months favouring LCI (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.38; 7 RCTs, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in median nerve DML at up to three months of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.37 ms, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.02; 6 RCTs, 359 participants/hands; very low-certainty evidence). The requirement for surgery probably reduces slightly in the LCI group at one year (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98; 1 RCT, 111 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, measured at up to three months of follow-up using the Short-Form 6 Dimensions questionnaire (scale from 0.29 to 1.0; higher is better) probably improved slightly in the LCI group (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.12; 1 RCT, 111 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were uncommon (low-certainty evidence). One study reported 2/364 injections resulted in severe pain which resolved over "several weeks" and 1/364 injections caused a "sympathetic reaction" with a cool, pale hand that completely resolved in 20 minutes. One study (111 participants) reported no serious adverse events, but 65% of LCI-injected and 16% of the placebo-injected participants experienced mild-to-moderate pain lasting less than two weeks. About 9% of participants experienced localised swelling lasting less than two weeks. Four studies (229 participants) reported that they experienced no adverse events in their studies. Three studies (220 participants) did not specifically report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Local corticosteroid injection is effective for the treatment of mild and moderate CTS with benefits lasting up to six months and a reduced need for surgery up to 12 months. Where serious adverse events were reported, they were rare.

[Physiotherapy and sports therapeutic interventions for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome : A systematic review]

BACKGROUND

The treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) usually involves surgical decompression of the nerve or splinting and additional medication. Physiotherapy and sports therapy could be non-invasive and alternative treatment approaches with a simultaneous low risk of side effects.

OBJECTIVE

The review systematically summarizes the current studies on the effectiveness of physiotherapy and sports therapeutic interventions for treatment of CTS and focuses on the reduction of symptoms and, as a secondary outcome, improvement of hand function.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The systematic review includes randomized controlled trials reporting on physiotherapy or sports therapy interventions published prior to February 2021 in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science. Following the guidelines of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the Cochrane Collaboration, a systematic search of the literature, data extraction and evaluation of the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool were conducted by two independent researchers.

RESULTS

Out of 461 identified studies 26 were included in the qualitative analysis. The risk of bias in the individual studies was graded as moderate to low. Potential bias might arise due to inadequate blinding of patients and study personnel in some cases as well as due to selective reporting of study results and procedures. Manual therapy proved to be faster and equally effective in reducing pain and improving function in the long term compared to surgery. Mobilization techniques, massage techniques, kinesiotaping and yoga as therapeutic interventions also showed positive effects on symptoms.

CONCLUSION

For the management of mild to moderate CTS, physiotherapy and sports therapeutic interventions are characterized primarily by success after as little as 2 weeks of treatment as well as comparable success to surgery and 3 months of postoperative treatment. In addition, patients are not exposed to surgical risks. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the number 42017073839.

Acupuncture and related interventions for the treatment of symptoms associated with carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compressive neuropathic disorder at the level of the wrist. Acupuncture and other methods that stimulate acupuncture points, such as electroacupuncture, auricular acupuncture, laser acupuncture, moxibustion, and acupressure, are used in treating CTS. Acupuncture has been recommended as a potentially useful treatment for CTS, but its effectiveness remains uncertain. We used Cochrane methodology to assess the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised trials of acupuncture for symptoms in people with CTS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture and acupuncture-related interventions compared to sham or active treatments for the management of pain and other symptoms of CTS in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

On 13 November 2017, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus, DARE, HTA, and NHS EED. In addition, we searched six Korean medical databases, and three Chinese medical databases from inception to 30 April 2018. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials examining the effects of acupuncture and related interventions on the symptoms of CTS in adults. Eligible studies specified diagnostic criteria for CTS. We included outcomes measured at least three weeks after randomisation. The included studies compared acupuncture and related interventions to placebo/sham treatments, or to active interventions, such as steroid nerve blocks, oral steroid, splints, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), surgery and physical therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors followed standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies with 869 participants. Ten studies reported the primary outcome of overall clinical improvement at short-term follow-up (3 months or less) after randomisation. Most studies could not be combined in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity, and all had an unclear or high overall risk of bias.Seven studies provided information on adverse events. Non-serious adverse events included skin bruising with electroacupuncture and local pain after needle insertion. No serious adverse events were reported.One study (N = 41) comparing acupuncture to sham/placebo reported change on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) at three months after treatment (mean difference (MD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.79 to 0.33) and the BCTQ Functional Status Scale (FSS) (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.63), with no clear difference between interventions; the evidence was of low certainty. The only dropout was due to painful acupuncture. Another study of acupuncture versus placebo/sham acupuncture (N = 111) provided no usable data.Two studies assessed laser acupuncture versus sham laser acupuncture. One study (N = 60), which was at low risk of bias, provided low-certainty evidence of a better Global Symptom Scale (GSS) score with active treatment at four weeks after treatment (MD 7.46, 95% CI 4.71 to 10.22; range of possible GSS scores is 0 to 50) and a higher response rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.22). No serious adverse events were reported in either group. The other study (N = 25) did not assess overall symptom improvement.One trial (N = 77) of conventional acupuncture versus oral corticosteroids provided very low-certainty evidence of greater improvement in GSS score (scale 0 to 50) at 13 months after treatment with acupuncture (MD 8.25, 95% CI 4.12 to 12.38) and a higher responder rate (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.45). Change in GSS at two weeks or four weeks after treatment showed no clear difference between groups. Adverse events occurred in 18% of the oral corticosteroid group and 5% of the acupuncture group (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.32). One study comparing electroacupuncture and oral corticosteroids reported a clinically insignificant difference in change in BCTQ score at four weeks after treatment (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.10; N = 52).Combined data from two studies comparing the responder rate with acupuncture versus vitamin B_12, produced a RR of 1.16 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; N = 100, very low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.One study of conventional acupuncture versus ibuprofen in which all participants wore night splints found very low-certainty evidence of a lower symptom score on the SSS of the BCTQ with acupuncture (MD -5.80, 95% CI -7.95 to -3.65; N = 50) at one month after treatment. Five people had adverse events with ibuprofen and none with acupuncture.One study of electroacupuncture versus night splints found no clear difference between the groups on the SSS of the BCTQ (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.43; N = 60; very low-certainty evidence). Six people had adverse events with electroacupuncture and none with splints. One study of electroacupuncture plus night splints versus night splints alone presented no difference between the groups on the SSS of the BCTQ at 17 weeks (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.04; N = 181, low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.One study comparing acupuncture plus NSAIDs and vitamins versus NSAIDs and vitamins alone showed no clear difference on the BCTQ SSS at four weeks (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.46; very low-certainty evidence). There was no reporting on adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture and laser acupuncture may have little or no effect in the short term on symptoms of CTS in comparison with placebo or sham acupuncture. It is uncertain whether acupuncture and related interventions are more or less effective in relieving symptoms of CTS than corticosteroid nerve blocks, oral corticosteroids, vitamin B₁₂, ibuprofen, splints, or when added to NSAIDs plus vitamins, as the certainty of any conclusions from the evidence is low or very low and most evidence is short term. The included studies covered diverse interventions, had diverse designs, limited ethnic diversity, and clinical heterogeneity. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to rigorously assess the effects of acupuncture and related interventions upon symptoms of CTS. Based on moderate to very-low certainty evidence, acupuncture was associated with no serious adverse events, or reported discomfort, pain, local paraesthesia and temporary skin bruises, but not all studies provided adverse event data.

Theoretical impact of simulated workplace-based primary prevention of carpal tunnel syndrome in a French region

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common nerve entrapment neuropathy in the working-age population. The reduction of CTS incidence in the workforce is a priority for policy makers due to the human, social and economic costs. To assess the theoretical impact of workplace-based primary interventions designed to reduce exposure to personal and/or work-related risk factors for CTS.

METHODS

Surgical CTS were assessed using regional hospital discharge records for persons aged 20-59 in 2009. Using work-related attributable fractions (AFEs), we estimated the number of work-related CTS (WR-CTS) in high-risk jobs. We simulated three theoretical scenarios of workplace-based primary prevention for jobs at risk: a mono-component work-centered intervention reducing the incidence of WR-CTS arbitrarily by 10% (10%-WI), and multicomponent global interventions reducing the incidence of all surgical CTS by 5% and 10% by targeting personal and work risk factors.

RESULTS

A limited proportion of CTS were work-related in the region's population. WR-CTS were concentrated in nine jobs at high risk of CTS, amounting to 1603 [1137-2212] CTS, of which 906 [450-1522] were WR-CTS. The 10%-WI, 5%-GI and 10%-GI hypothetically prevented 90 [46-153], 81 [58-111] and 159 [114-223] CTS, respectively. The 10%-GI had the greatest impact regardless of the job. The impact of the 10%-WI interventions was high only in jobs at highest risk and AFEs (e.g. food industry jobs). The 10%-WI and 5%-GI had a similar impact for moderate-risk jobs (e.g. healthcare jobs).

CONCLUSION

The impact of simulated workplace-based interventions suggests that prevention efforts to reduce exposure to work-related risk factors should focus on high-risk jobs. Reducing CTS rates will also require integrated strategies to reduce personal risk factors, particularly in jobs with low levels of work-related risk of CTS.

Low-level laser therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

The role of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is controversial. While some trials have shown distinct advantages of LLLT over placebo and some other non-surgical treatments, other trials have not.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of LLLT versus placebo and versus other non-surgical interventions in the management of CTS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 9 December 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies. We checked the references of primary studies and review articles, and contacted trial authors for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion RCTs (irrespective of blinding, publication status or language) comparing LLLT versus placebo or non-surgical treatment for the management of CTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials for inclusion and extracted the data. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model, calculated using Review Manager. For dichotomous data, we reported risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 22 trials randomising 1153 participants that were eligible for inclusion; nine trials (525 participants, 256 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with placebo, two (150 participants, 75 randomised to LLLT) compared LLLT with ultrasound, one compared LLLT with placebo and LLLT with ultrasound, two compared LLLT with steroid injection, and one trial each compared LLLT with other non-surgical interventions: fascial manipulation, application of a pulsed magnetic field, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), steroid injection, tendon gliding exercises, and applying a wrist splint combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Three studies compared LLLT as part of multiple interventions. Risk of bias varied across the studies, but was high or unclear in most assessed domains in most studies. Most studies were small, with few events, and effect estimates were generally imprecise and inconsistent; the combination of these factors led us to categorise the quality of evidence for most outcomes as very low or, for a small number, low. At short-term follow-up (less than three months), there was very low-quality evidence for any effect over placebo of LLLT on CTS for the primary outcome of Symptom Severity Score (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsening; MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.06) or Functional Status Scale (scale 1 to 5, higher score represents worsened disability; MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.09). At short-term (less than three months) follow-up, we are uncertain whether LLLT results in a greater improvement than placebo in visual analogue score (VAS) pain (scale 0 to 10, higher score represents worsening; MD -1.47, 95% CI -2.36 to -0.58) and several aspects of nerve conduction studies (motor nerve latency: higher score represents worsening; MD -0.09 ms, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.03; range 3.1 ms to 4.99 ms; sensory nerve latency: MD -0.10 ms, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.06; range 1.8 ms to 3.9 ms), as the quality of the evidence was very low. When compared with placebo at short-term follow-up, LLLT may slightly improve grip strength (MD 2.58 kg, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.95; range 14.2 kg to 25.23 kg) and finger-pinch strength (MD 0.94 kg, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.44; range 4.35 kg to 5.7 kg); however, the quality of evidence was low. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength results reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as previously published. We are uncertain about the effect of LLLT in comparison to ultrasound at short-term follow-up for improvement in VAS pain (MD 2.81, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.40) and motor nerve latency (MD 0.61 ms, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95), as the quality of evidence was very low. When compared with ultrasound at short-term follow-up, LLLT may result in slightly less improvement in finger-pinch strength (MD -0.71 kg, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.49) and motor nerve amplitude (MD -1.90 mV, 95% CI -3.63 to -0.18; range 7.10 mV to 9.70 mV); however, the quality of evidence was low. There was insufficient evidence to assess the long-term benefits of LLLT versus placebo or ultrasound. There was insufficient evidence to show whether LLLT is better or worse in the management of CTS than other non-surgical interventions. For all outcomes reported within these other comparisons, the quality of evidence was very low. There was insufficient evidence to assess adverse events, as only one study reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is of very low quality and we found no data to support any clinical effect of LLLT in treating CTS. Only VAS pain and finger-pinch strength met previously published MCIDs but these are likely to be overestimates of effect given the small studies and significant risk of bias. There is low or very low-quality evidence to suggest that LLLT is less effective than ultrasound in the management of CTS based on short-term, clinically significant improvements in pain and finger-pinch strength. There is insufficient evidence to support LLLT being better or worse than any other type of non-surgical treatment in the management of CTS. Any further research of LLLT should be definitive, blinded, and of high quality.

Effectiveness of Occupational Therapy Interventions for Adults With Musculoskeletal Conditions of the Forearm, Wrist, and Hand: A Systematic Review

Occupational therapy practitioners are key health care providers for people with musculoskeletal disorders of the distal upper extremity. It is imperative that practitioners understand the most effective and efficient means for remediating impairments and supporting clients in progressing to independence in purposeful occupations. This systematic review provides an update to a previous review by summarizing articles published between 2006 and July 2014 related to the focused question, What is the evidence for the effect of occupational therapy interventions on functional outcomes for adults with musculoskeletal disorders of the forearm, wrist, and hand? A total of 59 articles were reviewed. Evidence for interventions was synthesized by condition within bone, joint, and general hand disorders; peripheral nerve disorders; and tendon disorders. The strongest evidence supports postsurgical early active motion protocols and splinting for various conditions. Very few studies have examined occupation-based interventions. Implications for occupational therapy practice and research are provided.

Carpal tunnel syndrome: clinical features, diagnosis, and management

Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most common peripheral nerve entrapment syndrome worldwide. The clinical symptoms and physical examination findings in patients with this syndrome are recognised widely and various treatments exist, including non-surgical and surgical options. Despite these advantages, there is a paucity of evidence about the best approaches for assessment of carpal tunnel syndrome and to guide treatment decisions. More objective methods for assessment, including electrodiagnostic testing and nerve imaging, provide additional information about the extent of axonal involvement and structural change, but their exact benefit to patients is unknown. Although the best means of integrating clinical, functional, and anatomical information for selecting treatment choices has not yet been identified, patients can be diagnosed quickly and respond well to treatment. The high prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome, its effects on quality of life, and the cost that disease burden generates to health systems make it important to identify the research priorities that will be resolved in clinical trials.

Rehabilitation following carpal tunnel release

BACKGROUND

Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) surgery. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear. This is the first update of a review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions following CTS surgery compared with no treatment, placebo, or another intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

On 29 September 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, AMED, LILACS, and PsycINFO. We also searched PEDro (3 December 2015) and clinical trials registers (3 December 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared any postoperative rehabilitation intervention with either no intervention, placebo, or another postoperative rehabilitation intervention in individuals who had undergone CTS surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach according to standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review we included 22 trials with a total of 1521 participants. Two of the trials were newly identified at this update. We studied different rehabilitation treatments including immobilisation using a wrist orthosis, dressings, exercise, controlled cold therapy, ice therapy, multi-modal hand rehabilitation, laser therapy, electrical modalities, scar desensitisation, and arnica. Three trials compared a rehabilitation treatment to a placebo, four compared rehabilitation to a no treatment control, three compared rehabilitation to standard care, and 15 compared various rehabilitation treatments to one another.Overall, the included studies were very low in quality. Thirteen trials explicitly reported random sequence generation; of these, five adequately concealed the allocation sequence. Four trials achieved blinding of both participants and outcome assessors. Five were at high risk of bias from incompleteness of outcome data at one or more time intervals, and eight had high risk of selective reporting bias.These trials were heterogeneous in terms of treatments provided, duration of interventions, the nature and timing of outcomes measured, and setting. Therefore, we were not able to pool results across trials.Four trials reported our primary outcome, change in self reported functional ability at three months or more. Of these, three trials provided sufficient outcome data for inclusion in this review. One small high-quality trial studied a desensitisation programme compared with standard treatment and revealed no statistically significant functional benefit based on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) (mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to 0.33). One low-quality trial assessed participants six months post surgery using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and found no significant difference between a no formal therapy group and a group given a two-week course of multi-modal therapy commenced at five to seven days post surgery (MD 1.00, 95% CI -4.44 to 6.44). One very low-quality quasi-randomised trial found no statistically significant difference in function on the BCTQ at three months post surgery with early immobilisation (plaster wrist orthosis worn until suture removal) compared with a splint and late mobilisation (MD 0.39, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.23).Differences between treatments for secondary outcome measures (change in self reported functional ability measured at less than three months; change in CTS symptoms; change in CTS-related impairment measures; presence of iatrogenic symptoms from surgery; return to work or occupation; and change in neurophysiological parameters) were generally small and not statistically significant. Few studies reported adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited and, in general, low quality evidence for the benefit of the reviewed interventions. People who have undergone CTS surgery should be informed about the limited evidence of effectiveness of postoperative rehabilitation interventions. Until researchers provide results of more high-quality trials that assess the effectiveness and safety of various rehabilitation treatments, the decision to provide rehabilitation following CTS surgery should be based on the clinician's expertise, the patient's preferences and the context of the rehabilitation environment. It is important for researchers to identify patients who respond to a particular treatment and those who do not, and to undertake high-quality studies that evaluate the severity of iatrogenic symptoms from surgery, measure function and return-to-work rates, and control for confounding variables.

Carpal and cubital tunnel and other, rarer nerve compression syndromes

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome is by far the most common peripheral nerve compression syndrome, affecting approximately one in every six adults to a greater or lesser extent. Splitting the flexor retinaculum to treat carpal tunnel syndrome is the second most common specialized surgical procedure in Germany. Cubital tunnel syndrome is rarer by a factor of 13, and the other compression syndromes are rarer still.

METHODS

This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library, along with current guidelines and the authors' clinical and scientific experience.

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials have shown, with a high level of evidence, that the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome yields very good results regardless of the particular technique used, as long as the diagnosis and the indication for surgery are well established by the electrophysiologic and radiological findings and the operation is properly performed. The success rates of open surgery, and the single-portal and dual-portal endoscopic methods are 91.6%, 93.4% and 92.5%, respectively. When performed by experienced hands, all these procedures have complication rates below 1%. The surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome has a comparably low complication rate, but worse results overall. Neuro-ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging (neuro-MRI) are increasingly being used to complement the diagnostic findings of electrophysiologic studies.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based diagnostic methods and treatment recommendations are now available for the two most common peripheral nerve compression syndromes. Further controlled trials are needed for most of the rarer syndromes, especially the controversial ones.

Rehabilitation following carpal tunnel release

BACKGROUND

Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) surgery. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of rehabilitation following CTS surgery compared with no treatment, placebo, or another intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 April 2012, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (3 April 2012), CENTRAL (2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2012), CINAHL Plus (January 1937 to March 2012), AMED (January 1985 to April 2012), LILACS (January 1982 to March 2012), PsycINFO (January 1806 to March 2012), PEDRO (29 January 2013) and clinical trials registers (29 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared any postoperative rehabilitation intervention with either no intervention, placebo or another postoperative rehabilitation intervention in individuals who had undergone CTS surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review we included 20 trials with a total of 1445 participants. We studied different rehabilitation treatments including: immobilisation using a wrist orthosis, dressings, exercise, controlled cold therapy, ice therapy, multimodal hand rehabilitation, laser therapy, electrical modalities, scar desensitisation, and arnica. Three trials compared a rehabilitation treatment to a placebo comparison; three trials compared rehabilitation to a no treatment control; three trials compared rehabilitation to standard care; and 14 trials compared various rehabilitation treatments to one another.Overall, the included studies were very low in quality. Eleven trials explicitly reported random sequence generation and, of these, three adequately concealed the allocation sequence. Four trials achieved blinding of both participants and outcome assessors. Five studies were at high risk of bias from incompleteness of outcome data at one or more time intervals. Eight trials had a high risk of selective reporting bias.The trials were heterogenous in terms of the treatments provided, the duration of interventions, the nature and timing of outcomes measured and setting. Therefore, we were not able to pool results across trials.Four trials reported our primary outcome, change in self reported functional ability at three months or longer. Of these, three trials provided sufficient outcome data for inclusion in this review. One small high quality trial studied a desensitisation program compared to standard treatment and revealed no statistically significant functional benefit based on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) (MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.33). One moderate quality trial assessed participants six months post surgery using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and found no significant difference between a no formal therapy group and a two-week course of multimodal therapy commenced at five to seven days post surgery (MD 1.00; 95% CI -4.44 to 6.44). One very low quality quasi-randomised trial found no statistically significant difference in function on the BCTQ at three months post surgery with early immobilisation (plaster wrist orthosis worn until suture removal) compared with a splint and late mobilisation (MD 0.39; 95% CI -0.45 to 1.23).The differences between the treatments for the secondary outcome measures (change in self reported functional ability measured at less than three months; change in CTS symptoms; change in CTS-related impairment measures; presence of iatrogenic symptoms from surgery; return to work or occupation; and change in neurophysiological parameters) were generally small and not statistically significant. Few studies reported adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited and, in general, low quality evidence for the benefit of the reviewed interventions. People who have had CTS surgery should be informed about the limited evidence of the effectiveness of postoperative rehabilitation interventions. Until the results of more high quality trials that assess the effectiveness and safety of various rehabilitation treatments have been reported, the decision to provide rehabilitation following CTS surgery should be based on the clinician's expertise, the patient's preferences and the context of the rehabilitation environment. It is important for researchers to identify patients who respond to a certain treatment and those who do not, and to undertake high quality studies that evaluate the severity of iatrogenic symptoms from the surgery, measure function and return-to-work rates, and control for confounding variables.

Therapeutic ultrasound for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic ultrasound may be offered to people experiencing mild to moderate symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The effectiveness and duration of benefit of this non-surgical intervention remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of therapeutic ultrasound compared with no treatment, placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 27 November 2012, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11 in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2012), CINAHL Plus (January 1937 to November 2012), and AMED (January 1985 to November 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any regimen of therapeutic ultrasound with no treatment, a placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for primary and secondary outcomes. We pooled results of clinically homogenous trials in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model, where possible, to provide estimates of the effect.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies including 414 participants in the review. Two trials compared therapeutic ultrasound with placebo, two compared one ultrasound regimen with another, two compared ultrasound with another non-surgical intervention, and six compared ultrasound as part of a multi-component intervention with another non-surgical intervention (for example, exercises and splint). The risk of bias was low in some studies and unclear or high in other studies, with only two reporting that the allocation sequence was concealed and six reporting that participants were blinded. Overall, there is insufficient evidence that one therapeutic ultrasound regimen is more efficacious than another. Only two studies reported the primary outcome of interest, short-term overall improvement (any measure in which patients indicate the intensity of their complaints compared with baseline, for example, global rating of improvement, satisfaction with treatment, within three months post-treatment). One low quality trial with 68 participants found that when compared with placebo, therapeutic ultrasound may increase the chance of experiencing short-term overall improvement at the end of seven weeks treatment (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.40 to 3.98), although losses to follow-up and failure to adjust for the correlation between wrists in participants with bilateral CTS in this study suggest that this data should be interpreted with caution. Another low quality trial with 60 participants found that at three months post-treatment therapeutic ultrasound plus splint increased the chance of short-term overall improvement (patient satisfaction) when compared with splint alone (RR 3.02; 95% CI 1.36 to 6.72), but decreased the chance of short-term overall improvement when compared with low-level laser therapy plus splint (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.33), though participants were not blinded to treatment, it was unclear if the random allocation sequence was adequately concealed, and there was a potential unit of analysis error. Differences between groups receiving different frequencies and intensities of ultrasound, and between ultrasound as part of a multi-component intervention versus other non-surgical interventions, were generally small and not statistically significant for symptoms, function, and neurophysiologic parameters. No studies reported any adverse effects of therapeutic ultrasound, but this outcome was only measured in three studies. More adverse effects data are required before any firm conclusions on the safety of therapeutic ultrasound can be made.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only poor quality evidence from very limited data to suggest that therapeutic ultrasound may be more effective than placebo for either short- or long-term symptom improvement in people with CTS. There is insufficient evidence to support the greater benefit of one type of therapeutic ultrasound regimen over another or to support the use of therapeutic ultrasound as a treatment with greater efficacy compared to other non-surgical interventions for CTS, such as splinting, exercises, and oral drugs. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed to determine the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic ultrasound for CTS.

Splinting for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a condition where one of two main nerves in the wrist is compressed, which can lead to pain in the hand, wrist and sometimes arm, and numbness and tingling in the thumb, index and long finger. Splinting is usually offered to people with mild to moderate symptoms. However, the effectiveness and duration of the benefit of splinting for this condition remain unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of splinting for carpal tunnel syndrome with no treatment, placebo or another non-surgical intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (10 January 2011), CENTRAL, NHSEED and DARE (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2012), AMED (January 1985 to January 2012), and CINAHL Plus (January 1937 to January 2012), using no time limits. We searched the reference lists of all included trials and relevant reviews for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing splinting with no treatment (or a placebo) or with other non-surgical treatments were eligible for inclusion. We also included studies comparing one splint type or regimen versus another. We excluded studies comparing splinting with surgical treatment. There were no language restrictions. We included all patients diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome unless they had undergone surgical release.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, and performed data extraction. Two authors also independently performed the assessment of risk of bias. We calculated measures of effect as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported and statistical significance set at P < 0.05 for all outcome comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 19 studies randomising 1190 participants with carpal tunnel syndrome. Two studies compared splinting with no treatment, five compared different splint designs, one compared different splint-wearing regimens, seven compared splint delivered as a single intervention with another non-surgical intervention, and five compared splint delivered alongside other non-surgical interventions with another non-surgical intervention. Only three studies reported concealing the allocation sequence, and only one reported blinding of participants. Three studies measured the primary outcome, short-term overall improvement at three months or less. One low quality study with 80 wrists found that compared to no treatment, splints worn at night more than tripled the likelihood of reporting overall improvement at the end of four weeks of treatment (RR 3.86, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.51). However, the lack of patient blinding and unclear allocation concealment suggests this result should be interpreted with caution. A very low quality quasi-randomised trial with 90 wrists found that wearing a neutral splint more than doubled the likelihood of reporting 'a lot or complete relief' at the end of two weeks of treatment compared with an extension splint (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.28). The third study which measured short-term overall improvement did not report outcome data separately per group. Nine studies measured adverse effects of splinting and all found either no or few participants reporting discomfort or swelling due to splinting; however, the precision of all RRs was very low. Differences between groups in the secondary outcomes - symptoms, function, and neurophysiologic parameters - were most commonly small with 95% CIs incorporating effects in either direction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is limited evidence that a splint worn at night is more effective than no treatment in the short term, but there is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of one splint design or wearing regimen over others, and of splint over other non-surgical interventions for CTS. More research is needed on the long-term effects of this intervention for CTS.

Exercise and mobilisation interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Non-surgical treatment, including exercises and mobilisation, has been offered to people experiencing mild to moderate symptoms arising from carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However, the effectiveness and duration of benefit from exercises and mobilisation for this condition remain unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To review the efficacy and safety of exercise and mobilisation interventions compared with no treatment, a placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialised Register (10 January 2012), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2012), CINAHL Plus (January 1937 to January 2012), and AMED (January 1985 to January 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing exercise or mobilisation interventions with no treatment, placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed searches and selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for primary and secondary outcomes of the review. We collected data on adverse events from included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen studies randomising 741 participants with CTS were included in the review. Two compared a mobilisation regimen to a no treatment control, three compared one mobilisation intervention (for example carpal bone mobilisation) to another (for example soft tissue mobilisation), nine compared nerve mobilisation delivered as part of a multi-component intervention to another non-surgical intervention (for example splint or therapeutic ultrasound), and three compared a mobilisation intervention other than nerve mobilisation (for example yoga or chiropractic treatment) to another non-surgical intervention. The risk of bias of the included studies was low in some studies and unclear or high in other studies, with only three explicitly reporting that the allocation sequence was concealed, and four reporting blinding of participants. The studies were heterogeneous in terms of the interventions delivered, outcomes measured and timing of outcome assessment, therefore, we were unable to pool results across studies. Only four studies reported the primary outcome of interest, short-term overall improvement (any measure in which patients indicate the intensity of their complaints compared to baseline, for example, global rating of improvement, satisfaction with treatment, within three months post-treatment). However, of these, only three fully reported outcome data sufficient for inclusion in the review. One very low quality trial with 14 participants found that all participants receiving either neurodynamic mobilisation or carpal bone mobilisation and none in the no treatment group reported overall improvement (RR 15.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 220.92), though the precision of this effect estimate is very low. One low quality trial with 22 participants found that the chance of being 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with treatment was 24% higher for participants receiving instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilisation compared to standard soft tissue mobilisation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.75), though participants were not blinded and it was unclear if the allocation sequence was concealed. Another very low-quality trial with 26 participants found that more CTS-affected wrists receiving nerve gliding exercises plus splint plus activity modification had no pathologic finding on median and ulnar nerve distal sensory latency assessment at the end of treatment than wrists receiving splint plus activity modification alone (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.30). However, a unit of analysis error occurred in this trial, as the correlation between wrists in participants with bilateral CTS was not accounted for. Only two studies measured adverse effects, so more data are required before any firm conclusions on the safety of exercise and mobilisation interventions can be made. In general, the results of secondary outcomes of the review (short- and long-term improvement in CTS symptoms, functional ability, health-related quality of life, neurophysiologic parameters, and the need for surgery) for most comparisons had 95% CIs which incorporated effects in either direction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited and very low quality evidence of benefit for all of a diverse collection of exercise and mobilisation interventions for CTS. People with CTS who indicate a preference for exercise or mobilisation interventions should be informed of the limited evidence of effectiveness and safety of this intervention by their treatment provider. Until more high quality randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness and safety of various exercise and mobilisation interventions compared to other non-surgical interventions are undertaken, the decision to provide this type of non-surgical intervention to people with CTS should be based on the clinician's expertise in being able to deliver these treatments and patient's preferences.