Endoscopic carpal tunnel release is preferred over mini-open despite similar outcome: a randomized trial

Quality of ChatGPT Responses to Frequently Asked Questions in Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery

Background

Although demonstrating remarkable promise in other fields, the impact of artificial intelligence (including ChatGPT in hand surgery and medical practice) remains largely undetermined. In this study, we asked ChatGPT frequently asked patient-focused questions surgeons may receive in clinic from patients who have carpel tunnel syndrome (CTS) and evaluated the quality of its output.

Methods

Using ChatGPT, we asked 10 frequently asked questions that hand surgeons may receive in the clinic before carpel tunnel release (CTR) surgery. Included questions were generated from the authors' own experiences regarding conservative and operative treatment of CTS.

Results

Responses from the following 10 questions were included: (1) What is CTS and what are its signs and symptoms? (2) What are the nonsurgical options for CTS? (3) Should I get surgery for CTS? (4) What is a CTR and how is it preformed? (5) What are the differences between open and endoscopic CTR? (6) What are the risks associated with CTR and how frequently do they occur? (7) Does CTR cure CTS? (8) How much improvement in my symptoms can I expect after CTR? (9) How long is the recovery after CTR? (10) Can CTS recur after surgery?

Conclusions

Overall, the chatbot provided accurate and comprehensive information in response to most common and nuanced questions regarding CTS and CTR surgery, all in a way that would be easily understood by many patients. Importantly, the chatbot did not provide patient-specific advice and consistently advocated for consultation with a healthcare provider.

Direct Variable Cost Comparison of Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis

INTRODUCTION

To improve the delivery of value-based health care, a deeper understanding of the cost drivers in hand surgery is warranted. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) offers a more accurate estimation of resource utilization compared with top-down accounting methods. This study used TDABC to compare the facility costs of open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR).

METHODS

We identified 845 consecutive, unilateral carpal tunnel release (516 open, 329 endoscopic) surgeries performed at an orthopaedic specialty hospital between 2015 and 2021. Itemized facility costs were calculated using a TDABC algorithm. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and itemized costs were compared between OCTR and ECTR. Multivariate regression was used to determine the independent effect of endoscopic surgery on true facility costs.

RESULTS

Total facility costs were $352 higher in ECTR compared with OCTR ($882 versus $530). ECTR cases had higher personnel costs ($499 versus $420), likely because of longer surgical time (15 versus 11 minutes) and total operating room time (35 versus 27 minutes). ECTR cases also had higher supply costs ($383 versus $110). Controlling for demographics and comorbidities, ECTR was associated with an increase in personnel costs of $35.74 (95% CI, $26.32 to $45.15), supply costs of $230.28 (95% CI, $205.17 to $255.39), and total facility costs of $265.99 (95% CI, $237.01 to $294.97) per case.

DISCUSSION

Using TDABC, ECTR was 66% more costly to the facility compared with OCTR. To reduce the costs related to endoscopic surgery, efforts to decrease surgical time and negotiate lower ECTR-specific supply costs are warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analysis Level II.

Comparison of early clinical outcome in carpal tunnel release - mini-open technique with palmar incision vs. endoscopic technique with wrist crease incision

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine two techniques for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, mini-Open Carpal Tunnel Release (mini-OCTR) and Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release (ECTR), to compare their therapeutic efficacy.

METHODS

Sixteen patients who underwent mini-OCTR in palmar incision and 17 patients who underwent ECTR in the wrist crease incision were included in the study. All patients presented preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively and were assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH). We also assessed the pain and cosmetic VAS of the entire affected hand or surgical wound, and the patient's satisfaction with the surgery.

RESULTS

In the objective evaluation, both surgical techniques showed improvement at 6 months postoperatively. The DASH score was significantly lower in the ECTR group (average = 3 months: 13.6, 6 months: 11.9) than in the mini-OCTR group (average = 3 months: 27.3, 6 months: 20.6) at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Also, the pain VAS score was significantly lower in the ECTR group (average = 17.1) than in the mini-OCTR group (average = 36.6) at 3 months postoperatively. The cosmetic VAS was significantly lower in the ECTR group (average = 1 month: 15.3, 3 months: 12.2, 6 months: 5.41) than in the mini-OCTR group (average = 1 month: 33.3, 3 months: 31.2, 6 months: 24.8) at all time points postoperatively. Patient satisfaction scores tended to be higher in the ECTR group (average = 3.3) compared to the mini-OCTR group (average = 2.7).

CONCLUSIONS

ECTR in wrist increase incision resulted in better pain and cosmetic recovery in an early postoperative phase compared with mini-OCTR in palmar incision. Our findings suggest that ECTR is an effective technique for patient satisfaction.

Best-Evidence Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mini-Open Carpal Tunnel Release

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of mini-open carpal tunnel release (mOCTR) using best-evidence synthesis methods.

Methods

We systematically searched for prospective studies published from January 2013 to July 2023 that reported outcomes from a minimum of 50 mOCTR cases. The outcomes included Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) and Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS), pain visual analog scale (VAS), complication rate, and reoperation rate. Data analysis was performed using a random-effects meta-analysis, with metaregression to identify the associations between patient- and study-level factors with surgical outcomes.

Results

The meta-analysis included 23 studies with 2,303 patients followed for median durations ranging from 6 to 12 months depending on the outcome. Mini-open carpal tunnel release resulted in statistically significant and clinically important improvements in Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (mean difference = -25.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -36.4 to -14.5; P < .001), BCTQ-SSS (mean difference = -2.2; 95% CI: -2.5 to -1.9; P < .001), BCTQ-FSS (mean difference = -2.1; 95% CI: -2.4 to -1.7; P < .001), and pain VAS (mean difference = -5.1; 95% CI: -6.2 to -4.1; P < .001). The sole predictor of improvement in BCTQ-SSS, BCTQ-FSS, and pain VAS was a higher preoperative score for the respective variable (all P < .001). The risk of complications (mainly short-term pillar pain or scar complications) was 8.9% (95% CI: 4.0%-13.8%) and increased with longer incision lengths (P = .008). Revision carpal tunnel release was performed in 0.6% (95% CI: 0.1%-1.0%) of the cases during follow-up. No cases of median nerve transection were reported.

Conclusions

Based on a best-evidence meta-analysis of contemporary studies, mOCTR significantly improved function and pain, with a relatively low risk of mainly temporary complications. Patient outcomes after mOCTR were influenced by patient symptomatology and surgical incision length.

Clinical relevance

Mini-open carpal tunnel release is an effective surgical option that significantly improves symptoms and function, especially for patients with more severe baseline dysfunction. Surgeons should use the shortest incision that allows adequate visualization to safely divide the transverse carpal ligament.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Markov Cost-Effectiveness Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or corticosteroid injections may be used to conservatively treat mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PRP injections versus corticosteroid injections for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CTS.

METHODS

Markov modeling was used to analyze the base-case 45-year-old patient with mild-to-moderate CTS, unresponsive to conservative treatments, never previously treated with an injection or surgery, treated with a single injection of PRP, or methylprednisolone/triamcinolone 40 mg/mL. Transition probabilities were derived from level-I/II studies, utility values from the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry reported using visual analog scale (VAS), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom severity (BCTQ-S), and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Functional status (BCTQ-F), and costs from Medicare, published studies, and industry. Analyses were performed from healthcare/societal perspectives. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and net monetary benefits (NMB). Willingness-to-pay thresholds were $50 000 and $100 000. Deterministic/probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

From a healthcare perspective, compared to PRP injections, the ICER for corticosteroid injections measured by VAS: -$13.52/quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY), BCTQ-S: -$11.88/QALY, and BCTQ-F: -$16.04/QALY. PRP versus corticosteroid injections provided a NMB measured by VAS: $428 941.12 versus $375 788.21, BCTQ-S: $417 115.09 versus $356 614.18, and BCTQ-F: $421 706.44 versus $376 908.45. From a societal perspective, compared to PRP injections, the ICER for corticosteroid injections measured by VAS: -$1024.40/QALY, BCTQ-S: -$899.95/QALY, and BCTQ-F: -$1215.51/QALY. PRP versus corticosteroid injections provided a NMB measured by VAS: $428 171.63 versus $373 944.39, BCTQ-S: $416 345.61 versus $354 770.36, and BCTQ-F: $420 936.95 versus $375 064.63.

CONCLUSIONS

PRP injections were more cost-effective than methylprednisolone/triamcinolone injections from healthcare and societal perspectives for mild-to-moderate CTS.

Best-Evidence Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release Outcomes

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) using best-evidence synthesis methods.

Methods

A systematic search of multiple databases was conducted for prospective contemporary studies published between January 2013 and January 2023 with at least 50 ECTR cases. Outcomes included the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (Q-DASH) measured on a 0-100 scale, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) and Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS) on a 1-5 scale, pain visual analog scale on a 0-10 scale, conversion to open carpal tunnel release (CTR), complications, and reoperations. Outcomes were analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Metaregression was used to determine the association of patient- and study-level factors with ECTR outcomes.

Results

A total of 17 studies with 1,632 patients treated with ECTR were included. Median follow-up durations ranged from 4 to 7 months depending on the outcome. Statistically significant and clinically important improvements were noted after ECTR for Q-DASH, BCTQ-SSS, BCTQ-FSS, and pain visual analog scale scores, with mean differences from baseline of -28.8, -1.8, -1.5, and -5.1, respectively (P < .001 for all). In metaregression, the strongest predictor of improvement in Q-DASH, BCTQ-SSS, and BCTQ-FSS was a greater preoperative score for that variable (all P ≤ .005), indicating that patients with worse symptoms improved the most. The risks of conversion to open CTR, complications, and revision CTR were 0.7%, 0.7%, and 0.5%, respectively.

Conclusions

In a best-evidence synthesis of contemporary studies, ECTR resulted in significant improvements in function and pain, with a low risk of conversion to open surgery, complications, and reoperations over short-term follow-up.

Clinical relevance

Patients treated with ECTR can expect generally favorable clinical outcomes over the short term. However, long-term outcomes after ECTR are not well characterized.

Open versus Single- or Dual-Portal Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Compared to the traditional open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), the additional safety and efficacy benefits of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of ECTR versus conventional OCTR as well as determine if a difference exists between the 2 most common endoscopic techniques: the single-portal and the dual-portal endoscopic technique.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and the CENTRAL. Additional articles were identified by handsearching reference lists. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of ECTR with OCTR technique. Outcomes assessed included length of surgery, patient reported symptom and functional measures, time to return to work, and complications. A sub-group analysis was performed to indirectly compare single- versus dual-portal endoscopic approaches. Statistical analysis was performed via a random-effects model using Review Manager 5 Software.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of 23 studies revealed a significantly higher incidence of transient postoperative nerve injury with ECTR, regardless of the number of portals, as compared with OCTR, although overall complication and re-operation rates were equivalent. Scar tenderness was significantly diminished with dual-portal endoscopic release when compared to single-portal and open methods. The rates of pillar pain, symptom relief, and patient reported satisfaction did not differ significantly between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although endoscopic surgery may be appealing in terms of reduced postoperative morbidity and a faster return to work for patients, surgeons should be mindful of the associated learning curve and higher incidence of transient nerve injury. Further study is required to identify if an advantage exists between different endoscopic techniques.

A comparative study on efficacy of modified endoscopic minimally invasive treatment and traditional open surgery for primary carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common type of median nerve entrapment neuropathy. This study aims to comparatively assess the effectiveness and clinical efficacy of modified transforaminal endoscopic minimally invasive incision of transverse carpal ligament against traditional open incision of transverse carpal ligament in the treatment of CTS.

METHOD

The clinical data of 35 patients (57 wrists) with primary CTS treated in Shanxi Bethune Hospital, China, were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into observation group (21 cases, 33 wrists) and control group (14 cases, 24 wrists), respectively, who underwent modified endoscopic minimally invasive incision of transverse carpal ligament and traditional open incision of transverse carpal ligament release. The Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) was assessed at for points: before the operation; 2 weeks; 1 month; and 3 months after operation. The BCTQ scores of the two groups were compared on all four points. The incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complication was used as the evaluation index. The study variables were comparatively assessed before and postoperation and also between the groups.

RESULTS

The BCTQ scores at 2 weeks, 1 month and 3 months after the operation were significantly lower than preoperative BCTQ scores (P < 0.005) for both the groups. There was no significant difference in BCTQ scores between the two groups at the four assessment points (P > 0.005). The scar size and wound healing time were significantly better with modified transforaminal endoscopic minimally invasive transverse carpal ligament incision.

CONCLUSION

The clinical effects of both modified transforaminal minimally invasive incision of transverse carpal ligament and traditional open incision of transverse carpal ligament are significant, while the treatment efficacy of modified transforaminal minimally invasive transverse carpal ligament incision is better in terms of operation time, wound size, postoperative scar size and incision healing time.

[Translated article] Percutaneous ultrasound-guided section of the transverse carpal ligament vs. open surgery for the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The gold standard of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) treatment is the section of the transverse carpal ligament, the most common technique being the palmar cutaneous incision. Percutaneous techniques have been developed, although their risk/benefit ratio remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the functional outcome of patients undergoing CTS percutaneously ultrasound-guided and compare it with those of open surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Prospective observational cohort study of 50 patients undergoing CTS (25 percutaneous with WALANT technique and 25 by open surgery with local anaesthesia and tourniquet). Open surgery was performed using a short palmar incision. The percutaneous technique was performed anterograde using the Kemis H3® scalpel (Newclip). A preoperative and postoperative assessment was performed at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months. Demographic data, presence of complications, grip strength and Levine test score (BCTQ) were collected.

RESULTS

The sample consists of 14 men and 36 women with a mean age of 51.4 years (95% CI: 48.4-54.5). Percutaneous technique was performed anterograde using the Kemis H3® scalpel (Newclip). All patients improved from their CTS clinic without obtaining statistically significant differences in BCTQ score, nor in the presence of complications (p>0.05). Patients operated on percutaneously recovered faster grip strength at 6 weeks, but it was similar in the final review.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the results obtained, percutaneous ultrasound-guided surgery is a good alternative for the surgical treatment of CTS. Logically, this technique requires its learning curve and familiarisation with the ultrasound visualisation of the anatomical structures to be treated.

Long-term Trends in Open vs Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release Among the Medicare Population in the United States

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel release (CTR) surgery is the most common surgery billed to Medicare by hand surgeons. As such, the purpose of this study was to evaluate trends for CTR surgeries billed to Medicare from 2000 to 2020.

METHODS

The publicly available Medicare Part B National Summary File from 2000 to 2020 was queried. For both open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR), the number of procedures and total Medicare reimbursement were extracted. For year 2020, the specialty of the performing surgeon was recorded. Descriptive statistics were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 3 429 471 CTR surgeries were performed in the Medicare population from 2000 to 2020. For these procedures, Medicare paid surgeons over $1.23 billion. During this period, there was a 101.8% increase in annual CTR procedures (91 130 in 2000, 183 911 in 2020). Further, annual volume of ECTR increased by 456.2%, and accounted for an increasing percentage of total CTR procedures (9.1% in 2012, 25.2% in 2020). The average adjusted Medicare reimbursement per procedure decreased by 1.5% for OCTR, and decreased by 11.6% for ECTR. In 2020, orthopedic surgeons performed 85.1% of CTR procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The volume of CTR surgeries among the Medicare population has increased from 2000 to 2020, and ECTR is accounting for a growing proportion of surgeries. When adjusted for inflation, average reimbursement has decreased, with a greater decrease among ECTR. Orthopedic surgeons perform most of such surgeries. These trends are important to assure adequate resource allocation as treating carpal tunnel becomes more common among the aging Medicare population.

Endoscopic Release Superficial Rather Than Deep to the Transverse Carpal Ligament for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Improves Immediate Postoperative Transient Symptomatic Exacerbation With Fewer Absences From Work

PURPOSE

To determine the endoscopic release superficially rather than deep to the transverse carpal ligament to reduce the incidence of transient symptomatic exacerbation and postoperative absence from work in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

From January 2012 to January 2018, patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome who underwent one-portal endoscopic release superficial to the transverse carpal ligament (ERSTCL) were analyzed. For comparison, a cohort treated with the conventional Chow endoscopic release between February 2008 and October 2013 were included. Transient worsening of symptoms, discrimination sensation, and days off work were assessed. The minimal clinically important difference was calculated for discrimination sensation. Severity of symptom and functional status also were assessed using the Levine-Katz Questionnaire. Significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between the ERSTCL group and the control group regarding the incidence of symptomatic exacerbation 1 week after surgery (2% vs 9%; P = .003) but no difference in other time intervals within the initial 3 months. There was a significant difference in 2-point discrimination 1 week (mean change = -0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.30 to 0.04, P = .01) and 2 weeks after surgery (mean change = -0.18, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.01, P = .033). Postoperative 1 and 2 weeks, 28% and 35% patients in ERSTCL group achieved a minimal clinically important difference, respectively. Compared with control group, the difference in frequencies was statistically significant (28% vs 45%; P = .027; 35% vs 57%; P = .015). The difference between the 2 groups in postoperative absence from work was statistically significant (95% CI 1.083-4.724; P = .002), with an average reduction in sick leave of 3 days in ERSTCL group. At a mean follow-up of 3 years, no significant difference was found between the groups regarding symptom and function statuses.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic release superficial rather than deep to transverse carpal ligament for carpal tunnel syndrome improves immediate postoperative transient symptomatic exacerbation, which allows the patients to return to work earlier.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Minimally Invasive Carpal Tunnel Release Using a Hook Knife through a Small Transverse Carpal Incision: Technique and Outcome

Background

Compared to the classic open technique, limited exposure techniques have the advantages of less scar pain, more grip and pinch strength, and earlier return to daily life. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of our novel method of minimally invasive carpal tunnel release using a hook knife through a small transverse carpal incision.

Methods

This study included 111 carpal tunnel decompressions in 78 patients who underwent carpal tunnel release from January 2017 to December 2018. We performed carpal tunnel release using a hook knife through a small transverse incision just proximal to the wrist crease under local infiltration of lidocaine with tourniquet inflation in the upper arm. All patients were tolerable during the procedure and discharged following the procedure on the same day.

Results

At an average of 29.4 months of follow-up (range, 12-51 months), all but one patient (99%) revealed complete or near complete symptomatic recovery. The average of the symptom severity score on the Boston questionnaire was 1.31 ± 0.30 and the average of the functional status score was 1.19 ± 0.26. The final mean Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) score was 8.66 (range, 2-39). There was no superficial palmar arch injury or nerve injury of the palmar cutaneous branch, recurrent motor branch, or median nerve itself as a complication of the procedure. No patient showed any wound infection or wound dehiscence.

Conclusions

Our carpal tunnel release using a hook knife through a small transverse carpal incision performed by an experienced surgeon is a safe and reliable method that is expected to have the benefits of simplicity and minimal invasiveness.

Reporting of scar outcomes in the hand and wrist; a state-of-the-art literature review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this literature review was to synthesise and report current practice in evaluation and reporting of scar outcomes in hand and wrist clinical research.

METHODS

A systematic search from inception to 2022 was conducted using three electronic databases. English language randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting standardised scar outcome measures and/or scar symptoms, appearance, impairment, function, or mental health outcomes in patients with hand and wrist scars were included. Two independent reviewers determined study eligibility and performed data extraction of a priori identified scar outcome domains. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and identification of discordance in taxonomy.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were included. Elective surgery cohorts were the most frequently included clinical population (n = 28; 47%) followed by burns (n = 16; 27%). Six different standardised scar outcome measures were reported by 25% of studies however only 7% of studies utilised a patient-reported measure. Scar symptoms were the most frequently reported outcome domain (81%); but taxonomy was incongruous, constructs lacked working definitions required for generalisability and outcome measurement was variable and unreported. Nineteen different measures of scar appearance and structure were reported by 30 (51%) of studies however only nine (23%) were patient-reported. Seven different hand function PROMs were reported by 25 (43%) studies. Person-centred domains including scar acceptability (12%), mental health impact (5%), and social participation (4%) were rarely reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that evaluation and reporting of hand and wrist scar outcomes is not standardised, assessment methods and measures are under-reported and there is discordance in taxonomy. Evaluation is not person-centred, rather it is dependent on clinician assessment. Domains including scar acceptability, mental health, and social participation are rarely addressed. A stakeholder consensus derived hand and wrist scar core outcome measurement set will promote standardisation and underpin improvements in clinical research quality, transparency, and rigour.

Update on surgical procedures for carpal tunnel syndrome: What is the current evidence and practice? What are the future research directions?

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a multifactorial compression neuropathy. It is reported to be very common and rising globally. CTS’s treatment varies from conservative measures to surgical treatments. Surgery has shown to be an effective method for more severe cases. However few unclear aspects and room for further research and improvements still remains. We performed a narrative literature review on the most up to date progress and innovation in terms of surgical treatments for CTS. The simple algorithm of leaving the choice of the surgical method to surgeons’ preference and experience (together with consideration of patients’ related factors) seem to be the best available option, which is supported by the most recent metanalysis and systematic reviews. We suggest that surgeons (unless in presence of precise indications towards endoscopic release) should tend to perform a minimally invasive open approach release, favoring the advantage of a better neurovascular structures visualization (and a consequent higher chance to perform a complete release with long term relief of symptoms) instead of favoring an early reduction (in the first postoperative days) of immobilization and pain. Research towards a universally accepted standardization should be aimed for by the researchers, who have failed to date to sufficiently limit bias and limitations.

Percutaneous ultrasound-guided section of the transverse carpal ligament vs open surgery for the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The gold standard of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) treatment is the section of the transverse carpal ligament, the most common technique being the palmar cutaneous incision. Percutaneous techniques have been developed, although their risk/benefit ratio remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the functional outcome of patients undergoing CTS percutaneously ultrasound-guided and compare it with those of open surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Prospective observational cohort study of 50 patients undergoing CTS (25 percutaneous with WALANT technique and 25 by open surgery with local anesthesia and tourniquet). Open surgery was performed using a short palmar incision. The percutaneous technique was performed anterograde using the Kemis® H3 scalpel (Newclip). A preoperative and postoperative assessment was performed at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months. Demographic data, presence of complications, grip strength and Levine test score (BCTQ) were collected.

RESULTS

The sample consists of 14 men and 36 women with a mean age of 51.4 years (95% CI: 48.4-54.5). Percutaneous technique was performed anterograde using the Kemis® H3 scalpel (Newclip). All patients improved from their CTS clinic without obtaining statistically significant differences in BCTQ score, nor in the presence of complications (p> 0.05). Patients operated on percutaneously recovered faster grip strength at 6 weeks, but it was similar in the final review.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the results obtained, percutaneous ultrasound-guided surgery is a good alternative for the surgical treatment of CTS. Logically, this technique requires its learning curve and familiarization with the ultrasound visualization of the anatomical structures to be treated.

Nonpalmar Endoscopic versus Open Trigger Finger Release: Results from a Prospective Trial

The most common complaint after open surgical release for trigger finger is of pain and scarring at the surgical site. We hypothesized that use of a new nonpalmar endoscopic approach for release of the A1 pulley through an incision at the proximal digital crease would result in decreased scarring and faster recovery compared to those treated with standard open release.

Methods

Patients with trigger finger were prospectively enrolled and treated with a nonpalmar endoscopic versus open surgical technique. Outcome measures included scar assessment based on the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) administered 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively, time before return to work, occupational therapy visits, and overall satisfaction. Additional outcomes included pain medication use, operative time, and complication and recurrence rates.

Results

POSAS scores were better in the endoscopic treatment group than in the open group at all time points with a statistically significant difference seen at 1 week and 1 month postoperatively. The endoscopic group returned to work sooner, required fewer occupational therapy visits, and had better overall satisfaction compared to the open group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Complication and recurrence rates did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusions

Patients treated for trigger finger with a nonpalmar endoscopic release through an incision at the proximal digital crease demonstrate significantly better scarring in the early postoperative period compared to patients treated with the open surgical approach. Treatment for trigger finger with this technique is as effective as the standard open technique.

Mini-open carpal tunnel release: technique, feasibility and clinical outcome compared to the conventional procedure in a long-term follow-up

We sought to evaluate the findings of our anatomically landmarks based mini-open procedure (MCTR) through a palmar approach and to compare its outcome and practicability to the conventional method (OCTR). The study consisted of 100 matched patients (n = 50 MCTR, n = 50 OCTR) with a minimum follow-up of three years. The outcome was characterized via the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH), Symptom Severity Scale (SSS), Functional Status Scale (FSC), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). All adverse events were observed. An alpha of 0.05 and a confidence level of 95% were set for statistical analyses. Both techniques showed comparable functional results in a long-term period (mean follow-up MCTR: 60 months and OCTR: 54 months). MCTR versus OCTR at mean: DASH: 4.6/8.3 (p = 0.398), SSS: 1.3/1.2 (p = 0.534), FSC: 1.3/1.2 (p = 0.617), VAS: 0.4/0.7 (p = 0.246). The MCTR convinced through a lower rate of scar sensibility (MCTR: 0% vs. OCTR: 12%, 0/50 vs. 6/50; p = 0.007) and pillar pain, as well as a shortened recovery period and surgical time relative to the OCTR. Low complication rates were observed in both groups, no recurrences had to be documented. The MCTR procedure revealed a similar good clinical outcome as the conventional technique. MCTR is a minimally-invasive, reliable, fast and simple procedure with an obvious benefit regarding scar sensibility.

A Systematic Review of Randomised Control Trials Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Open and Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release

INTRODUCTION

Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most prevalent form of nerve compression syndrome of the upper limb; therefore, it is of clinical significance to critique treatment methods. There is an ongoing debate amongst clinicians as to which surgical method-open or endoscopic carpal tunnel release-provides better overall symptom relief and faster recovery time. This systematic review aimed to investigate the evidence from randomised control trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release surgery.

METHODS

Database searches were carried out to identify literature. An inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied to only include randomised control trials which compared open and endoscopic surgery. Publications were then selected according to PRISMA guidelines, risk of bias was assessed and patient outcome was assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were selected for this systematic review. It was found that for improvement to grip strength and symptom severity, the endoscopic group had more significant improvement in the short term, resulting in a quicker return to work time compared to the open group. The complication rate for both intervention groups was low despite more severe and irreversible complications such as prolonged pain and wound infections being observed in the open group; however, the endoscopic group reported a higher risk of needing repeat surgery.

CONCLUSION

The quicker recovery time, improved cosmetic result and less severe complications observed with the endoscopic technique suggest that it should be used more often. However, this review found no convincing evidence of a significantly superior technique in the long term.

Patient Willingness to Pay for Faster Return to Work or Smaller Incisions

Background: Value-based health care models such as bundled payments and accountable care organizations can penalize health systems and physicians for excess costs leading to low-value care. Health systems can minimize these extra costs by constraining diagnostic (eg, magnetic resonance imaging utilization) or treatment options with debatable necessity in the setting of clinical equipoise. Instead of restricting more expensive treatments, it is plausible that health systems could instead recoup the extra costs of these treatments by charging patients supplementary out-of-pocket charges (cost sharing). The primary aim of this exploratory study was to assess hand surgery patient willingness to pay supplementary out-of-pocket charges for a procedure that theoretically leads to an earlier return to work or smaller incisions when there are 2 procedures that lead to similar results (clinical equipoise). Methods: A total of 122 patients completed a questionnaire that included demographic information, a financial distress assessment, a series of scenarios asking patients the degree to which they are willing to pay extra for the procedure choice, as well as their perspective of how much insurers should be responsible for these additional costs. Results: Patients were willing to pay out-of-pocket to some degree for a procedure that leads to earlier return to work and smaller incision size when compared with a similar alternative procedure, but noted that insurers should bear a greater burden of costs. Approximately 10% of patients were willing to pay maximum amounts ($2500+) for earlier return to work (3, 7, and 14 days earlier) and smaller incision sizes of any length. Conclusions: Some patients may be willing to pay out-of-pocket and cost share for procedures that lead to earlier return to work and smaller incisions in the setting of clinical equipoise. As such, when developing and implementing alternative payment models, health systems could potentially offer services with debatable necessity in the setting of equipoise for a supplementary out-of-pocket charge.

Minimally invasive ultrasound-guided vs open release for carpal tunnel syndrome in working population: A randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of minimally invasive ultrasound (US)-guided vs open release for carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

In an open randomized controlled trial, 47 employed patients were allocated to US-guided carpal tunnel release (USCTR) and 42 to an open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) procedure. The main outcome was symptom severity measured by the Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire (BCTQ-S). Secondary outcomes were hand functionality (BCTQ-F), nerve conduction, two-point discrimination, handgrip and pinch strength, pain (visual analog scale), work leave and complications. For BCTQ-S and BCTQ-F, minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were also considered. Follow-up duration was 12 months.

RESULTS

Mixed model analyses detected no significant differences between the two treatment arms in BCTQ-S (P = .098) while BCTQ-F scores were significantly better in the USCTR group (P = .007). This benefit was, however, not supported by the MCID data. Remaining variables were similar in the two groups except pain which was lower in USCTR at 3 months follow-up. All variables but two-point discrimination showed significant improvement after 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal similar symptom relief benefits following OCTR or USCTR in these patients. The patients in our USCTR group, however, reported better hand functional status and less pain.

Optimizing Costs and Outcomes for Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from Societal and Health-Care System Perspectives

BACKGROUND

It is unclear which carpal tunnel release (CTR) strategy (i.e., which combination of surgical technique and setting) is most cost-effective. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare (1) open CTR in the procedure room (OCTR/PR), (2) OCTR in the operating room (OCTR/OR), and (3) endoscopic CTR in the operating room (ECTR/OR).

METHODS

A decision analytic model was used to compare costs and health utilities between treatment strategies. Utility and probability parameters were identified from the literature. Medical costs were estimated with Medicare ambulatory surgical payment data. Indirect costs were related to days out of work due to surgical recovery and complications. The effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the societal and health-care system perspectives with use of a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, OCTR/PR was more cost-effective than OCTR/OR and ECTR/OR from the societal perspective. The mean total costs and QALYs per patient were $29,738 ± $4,098 and 0.88 ± 0.08 for OCTR/PR, $30,002 ± $4,098 and 0.88 ± 0.08 for OCTR/OR, and $41,311 ± $4,833 and 0.87 ± 0.08 for ECTR/OR. OCTR/PR was also the most cost-effective strategy from the health-care system perspective. These findings were robust in the probabilistic sensitivity analyses: OCTR/PR was the dominant strategy (greater QALYs at a lower cost) in 55% and 61% of iterations from societal and health-care system perspectives, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that OCTR/PR and OCTR/OR remained more cost-effective than ECTR/OR from a societal perspective under the following conditions: $0 surgical cost of ECTR, 0% revision rate following ECTR, equalization of the return-to-work rate between OCTR and ECTR, or 0 days out of work following ECTR. OCTR/OR became more cost-effective than OCTR/PR with the median nerve injury rate tripling and doubling from societal and health-care system perspectives, respectively, or if surgical direct costs in the PR exceeded those in the OR.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with OCTR/OR and ECTR/OR, OCTR/PR minimizes costs to the health-care system and society while providing favorable outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analysis Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Treatment of Peripheral Nerve Compression Syndromes of the Upper Extremities: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Nerve compression syndromes are referred to as chronic irritation or pressure palsies of peripheral nerves in areas of preformed anatomical constriction. Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most common nerve compression syndrome, followed by cubital tunnel syndrome. In addition, less frequent nerve compression syndromes of the upper extremities that affect the median, ulnar or radial nerves have been described. This review provides an overview of current treatment options for nerve compression syndromes of the upper extremities.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic overview.

METHODS

Based on established national (AWMF) and international guidelines as well as the Cochrane Library, we performed a systematic literature search on PubMed (NLM), focusing on randomised controlled trials.

RESULTS

Over the research period (2012 - 2020), there were 43 randomised trials that investigated surgical carpal tunnel release methods, 68 that compared different conservative therapies and 12 that compared surgical versus conservative treatments. Furthermore, eight studies analysed surgical techniques and four analysed conservative techniques for cubital tunnel syndrome. No randomised trials were conducted on the less common peripheral nerve compression syndromes, but case reports and observational studies were conducted.

CONCLUSION

For carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes, there are evidence-based diagnostic methods as well as therapeutic recommendations based on randomised and controlled trials. When diagnosis is made after clinical examination and supported by radiological and electrophysiological evaluation, surgical treatment is considered superior to conservative treatment. In particular, excellent long-term results can be achieved by surgery for carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes. More controlled studies are needed to establish evidence-based therapeutic recommendations for the less common nerve compression syndromes, which are somewhat controversially and inconsistently defined.

Initial Outcomes of a Novel High-Visibility Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release Technique

Background  A large variety of endoscopic carpal tunnel release methods have been described in efforts to shorten recovery time, reduce scar discomfort, and allow earlier return to work. The majority of existing techniques are the modifications of the Agee, Chow, and Menon techniques, all of which require dedicated equipment that can increase facility and surgical fees for the patient and institution. We present a novel high-visibility endoscopic carpal tunnel release technique that uses common hand surgery instruments available in all surgical units, without requiring disposable or custom devices. Description of Technique  The cases were performed under local anesthesia using routine reusable instruments and a conventional 2.5-mm 30-degree small joint arthroscope. Following proximal dissection, a clear, colorless, plastic shield was created from a standard syringe that offered a 360-degree vision of the carpal tunnel and protection of the median nerve. Release of the transverse carpal ligament was performed under full arthroscopic vision using Metzenbaum dissection scissors. Methods  This pilot study analyses the first nine cases in eight patients who were operated on using this technique, with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. Results  No peri- or postoperative complications were encountered. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score, the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire score, and a visual analog score for pain. Conclusion  The high-visibility endoscopic carpal tunnel release technique is safe and effective, and offers a viable cost-reducing alternative to the existing endoscopic methods for carpal tunnel syndrome. Future comparative trials are required to validate these findings in a larger series. Level of Evidence  This is a Level IV study.

Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery- A Systematic Review of Open and Endoscopic Approaches

CONTEXT

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most frequent peripheral compression-induced neuropathy observed in patients worldwide. Surgery is necessary when conservative treatments fail and severe symptoms persist. Traditional Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) with visualization of carpal tunnel is considered the gold standard for decompression. However, Endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR), a less invasive technique than OCTR is emerging as a standard of care in recent years.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Criteria for this systematic review were derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two review authors searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database in May 2018 using the following MeSH terms from 1993-2016: 'carpal tunnel syndrome,' 'median nerve neuropathy,' 'endoscopic carpal tunnel release,' 'endoscopic surgery,' 'open carpal tunnel release,' 'open surgery,' and 'carpal tunnel surgery.' Additional sources, including Google Scholar, were added. Also, based on bibliographies and consultation with experts, appropriate publications were identified. The primary outcome measure was pain relief.

RESULTS

For this analysis, 27 studies met inclusion criteria. Results indicate that ECTR produced superior post-operative pain outcomes during short-term follow-up. Of the studies meeting inclusion criteria for this analysis, 17 studies evaluated pain as a primary or secondary outcome, and 15 studies evaluated pain, pillar tenderness, or incision tenderness at short-term follow-up. Most studies employed a VAS for assessment, and the majority reported superior short-term pain outcomes following ECTR at intervals ranging from one hour up to 12 weeks. Several additional studies reported equivalent pain outcomes at short-term follow-up as early as one week. No study reported inferior short-term pain outcomes following ECTR.

CONCLUSIONS

ECTR and OCTR produce satisfactory results in pain relief, symptom resolution, patient satisfaction, time to return to work, and adverse events. There is a growing body of evidence favoring the endoscopic technique for pain relief, functional outcomes, and satisfaction, at least in the early post-operative period, even if this difference disappears over time. Several studies have demonstrated a quicker return to work and activities of daily living with the endoscopic technique.

Analysis of surgical options for patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Bilateral endoscopic carpal tunnel release is a modality offered for the treatment of the median nerve compression neuropathy. This retrospective study compares outcomes for patients undergoing open carpal tunnel release versus bilateral endoscopic carpal tunnel release. We hypothesized that there is no significant difference in postoperative complication rates between unilateral open and bilateral endoscopic carpal tunnel release surgery.

METHODS

The authors identified all patients who underwent open carpal tunnel release, unilateral endoscopic carpal tunnel release and bilateral endoscopic carpal tunnel release at a university hospital from 2012 to 2014. Cases were identified using CPT billing codes and the data was assessed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). All endoscopic carpal tunnel releases were done by the same surgeon (AP), and greater than 90% of open procedures were done by a different same surgeon (DF).

RESULTS

The total combined complication rate was 24.7% with no significant difference (p > .05) between techniques. There were no major complications necessitating a return to the operating room. Variables that had a statistically significant difference between groups (p < .05) included mean tourniquet time, mean total procedure time, and return to work as determined from the number of follow-up appointments.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates equivocal complication profiles and decreased cost associated with bilateral endoscopic tunnel release as compared to sequential open carpal tunnel release. Endoscopic bilateral carpal tunnel release for patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome offers a safe and effective alternative to open carpal tunnel release.

Ultrasound Evaluation for Incomplete Carpal Tunnel Release

Background: Ultrasound can provide evaluation of the anatomy of the carpal tunnel in a convenient, noninvasive office setting. This study is intended to determine the accuracy and diagnostic performance of ultrasound, used by surgeons, for the evaluation of completeness of carpal tunnel release (CTR). Methods: Ten cadaver arms underwent randomized sectioning of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of the transverse carpal ligament. Following a brief training session, a blinded observer used ultrasound to evaluate the percentage of the transverse carpal ligament release. The release amount was then confirmed with an open exposure of the transverse carpal ligament. Results: Cronbach α and Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.92 and 0.87, demonstrating excellent reliability and validity of the technique. Diagnostic performance including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value was 100%, 75%, 86%, and 100%, respectively, for the diagnosis of incomplete release of the transverse carpal ligament by a novice sonographer orthopedic surgeon. Conclusions: The ultrasound is a highly accurate tool for the diagnosis of incomplete transverse carpal ligament release and requires a minimal amount of training to use for this purpose. It provides a rapid means of diagnosing incomplete release of the transverse carpal ligament following CTR.

An Incision-less Ultrasound-guided Carpal Tunnel Release Technique

Ultrasound guidance in the operative treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome is gaining in popularity as it noninvasively provides the surgeon with a real-time high-resolution overview of anatomic structures. A new incision-less approach to achieve a division of the transverse carpal ligament has been developed that combines ultrasound guidance with cannulated needles and a thread. Conceptually, an abrasive thread is looped percutaneously around the ligament while avoiding injury to neurovascular structures, the palmar aponeurosis, and skin. The thread is positioned using 2 puncture sites and a contoured Tuohy needle under ultrasound visualization. With a minimal injury to surrounding structures, this approach is designed to minimize recovery time and decrease pillar pain. This article will provide a step-by-step overview of the technique and includes a review of clinical outcomes published so far.

A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Open and Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release Within the Same Patient

Background: Surgical management of carpal tunnel syndrome includes performing an endoscopic (ECTR) or open (OCTR) carpal tunnel release. Several studies have shown less postoperative pain and improvement in grip and pinch strength with the endoscopic technique. The goal of this study was to prospectively examine outcomes, patient satisfaction, and complications after both ECTR and OCTR in the opposite hands of the same patient. Methods: This was a prospective study in which patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome underwent surgical release with both techniques, with initial operative approach randomized in the more symptomatic hand. Demographic data and functional outcomes were recorded, including the pain score, 2-point discrimination, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing, thenar strength testing, grip strength, carpal tunnel syndrome functional status score, carpal tunnel syndrome symptom severity score, and overall satisfaction. Results: Thirty patients completed the study; there were no significant differences in any measure at any of the postoperative time points. Symptom severity and functional status scores were not significantly different between groups at any evaluation. Subjectively, 24 of 30 patients did state they preferred the ECTR, mostly citing less pain as their primary reason, although pain scores were not significantly different. Differences in overall satisfaction were also not significant. Conclusions: Both techniques are well tolerated with no differences in outcomes. With the added cost and equipment associated with ECTR, and no added benefit, the usefulness of ECTR is questionable.

Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) both have advantages and disadvantages for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We compared the effectiveness and safety of ECTR and OCTR based on evidence from a high-level randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Medline to identify relevant articles published until August 2019. Data regarding operative time, grip strength, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire scores, digital sensation, patient satisfaction, key pinch strength, return to work time, and complications were extracted and compared. All mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were expressed as ECTR relative to OCTR.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis contained twenty-eight studies. ECTR was associated with significantly higher satisfaction rates (MD, 3.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43 to 4.82; P = 0.0003), greater key pinch strengths (MD, 0.79 kg; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.32; P = 0.003), earlier return to work times (MD, - 7.25 days; 95% CI, - 14.31 to - 0.19; P = 0.04), higher transient nerve injury rates (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.37 to 17.25; P = 0.01), and a lower incidence of scar-related complications (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.59; P = 0.004). The permanent nerve injury showed no significant differences between the two methods (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.58 to 6.40; P = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that ECTR results in better recovery of daily life functions compared to OCTR, as revealed by higher satisfaction rates, greater key pinch strengths, earlier return to work times, and fewer scar-related complications. Our findings suggest that patients with CTS can be effectively managed with ECTR.

Ultrasound (US) Changes in the Median Nerve Cross-Sectional Area After Microinvasive US-Guided Carpal Tunnel Release

OBJECTIVE

To document changes in the median nerve cross-sectional area (CSA) in the proximal carpal tunnel region after ultrasound (US)-guided carpal tunnel release (CTR).

METHODS

Prospective data were collected on 23 consecutive patients (37 wrists) treated with US-guided CTR by the primary author using the same office-based microinvasive technique. Ultrasound was used to measure the largest CSA of the median nerve in the proximal carpal tunnel region both preoperatively and postoperatively. The primary outcome measure was the change in the preoperative versus 6- to 10-week postoperative median nerve CSA.

RESULTS

The mean CSA of the median nerve decreased from 16.08 to 12.75 mm² at 6 to 10 weeks after US-guided CTR (P < .001). During the same period, the mean Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) symptom score decreased from 3.23 to 1.67 (P < .001), and mean BCTQ functional score decreased from 2.49 to 1.47 (P < .001), both exceeding minimal clinically important differences. Although the primary end point was the median nerve CSA at 6 to 10 weeks, statistically significant reductions in the median nerve CSA, as well as BCTQ scores, were also observed as early as 2 to 4 weeks after US-guided CTR (median nerve CSA, 12.40 mm² ; BCTQ symptom score, 2.00; BCTQ functional score, 1.75; all P ≤ .03).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this investigation was the largest to date examining changes in the proximal median nerve CSA after US-guided CTR. Statistically significant reductions in the proximal median nerve CSA were observed within 6 to 10 weeks after ultrasound-guided CTR. These reductions were similar to those previously reported for open and endoscopic CTR and validate the ability of US-guided CTR to relieve median nerve compression.

Clinical Results of Ultrasound-Guided Carpal Tunnel Release Performed by a Primary Care Sports Medicine Physician

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided carpal tunnel release (USCTR) in a consecutive group of patients treated by a single primary care sports medicine physician.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 35 USCTRs performed on 22 consecutive patients for whom clinical outcomes were available before USCTR and at 1 to 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months after USCTR. All procedures were performed by the same operator using a single USCTR technique. Outcomes included complications, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire symptom severity and functional status scores, and a 5-point global satisfaction score.

RESULTS

The 22 patients included 13 female and 9 male patients (ages 31-82 years). Eleven patients (22 wrists) had bilateral simultaneous USCTRs; 2 patients (4 wrists) had staged bilateral USCTRs; and 9 patients had unilateral USCTRs. No complications occurred in any patient. Statistically and clinically significant reductions in Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire symptom severity and functional status scores occurred by 1 to 2 weeks after USCTR (mean 1- to 2-week changes, -29.23, -1.74, and -1.18, respectively), and further improvements occurred during the 3-month follow-up period (mean 3-month changes, -51.11, -2.29, and -1.91; P < .0001 for all values versus before USCTR). Mean global satisfaction scores at 1 to 2 weeks and 3 months were 4.63 and 4.66.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided CTR is a safe and effective procedure that can be performed by an experienced primary care sports medicine physician and typically results in significant improvements within the first 2 weeks after the procedure. Furthermore, bilateral simultaneous USCTRs are feasible and may provide significant advantages for patients who are candidates for bilateral CTRs.

The experience of the free superficial palmar branch of the radial artery perforator flap application

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to retrospect and summarize clinical efficacy and experience of the free perforator flap base on the superficial palmar branch of the radial artery for tissue defect reconstruction in hand.

METHOD

17 patients who underwent tissue defect in hands reconstruction by the free superficial palmar branch of the radial artery (SPBRA) perforator flaps in our department from July 2014 to October 2018 were reviewed.

RESULTS

All the flaps in our series application were survival uneventful except one, which was necrosis because of venous thrombosis postoperative 5 days, and then the abdominal pedicle flap was executed to recover the defect in second stage. The first dorsal metacarpal artery flap and the arterial venous flap were utilized to cover the defect in one right index finger and one right ring finger due to the absence variation of the SPBRA. 2 cases presented tension vesicle of superficial skin and 1 case occurred venous congestion. All donor sites were closed primarily. The follow-up period means 13.5 months (range, 4-50 months). The static 2 point discrimination test mean 7.53 mm (range, 4-11 mm). All flaps acquire protective feeling at the latest follow-up. The self-assessment of patients: 13 cases in good, 4 cases in fair.

CONCLUSION

The goal of physiological reconstruction and esthetic effect can be achieved for hand tissue defect by the free SPBRA perforator flap, multiple tissues of the flap can be contained according to the defect. Even though the SPBRA is variation, arterial venous flap could be applied thanks to abundant superficial cutaneous veins.

Comparison of Wrist Arthroscopy, Small Incision Surgery, and Conventional Surgery for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Retrospective Study at a Single Center

Background

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of wrist arthroscopy, small incision surgery, and conventional open carpal tunnel release surgery for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Material/Methods

Patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (n=111) were treated with wrist arthroscopy (n=33), small incision surgery (n=40), and conventional open carpal tunnel release surgery (n=38). Incision length, duration of surgery, degree of intraoperative bleeding, recovery time, and findings at postoperative follow-up at one month, three months, and six months after surgery were recorded. Assessment included the two-point discrimination test, the grip and pinch strength test, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, the Levine questionnaire, and Kelly’s therapeutic evaluation.

Results

Incision length, duration of surgery, intraoperative bleeding, and recovery time were significantly reduced in the wrist arthroscopy group and the small incision surgery group compared with the conventional surgery group (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in the two-point discrimination or grip and pinch strength test (p>0.05). Postoperatively, at one month, the VAS score, Levine score, and Kelly’s therapeutic evaluation in the wrist arthroscopy group and the small incision surgery group were significantly lower compared with the conventional surgery group (p<0.05). Scar length and scar tenderness in the conventional surgery group were significantly increased compared with the wrist arthroscopy group and the small incision surgery group (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Wrist arthroscopy, small incision surgery, and conventional open carpal tunnel release surgery were effective for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome, but conventional surgery resulted in more postoperative complications.

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release surgery: a case study in Vietnam

Background

This study aims at investigating the outcome and electrophysiologic recovery of 150 carpal tunnel syndrome hands after single-portal endoscopic surgery.

Methods

Patients with the cross-sectional area of the median nerve being 13–15 mm² on ultrasound or abnormal sensory nerve conduction velocity on EMG are assigned to endoscopic surgery that cuts the decompressing transverse ligament to avoid the emergence of severe symptoms, such as muscular atrophy and loss of hand function.

Results

Single-portal endoscopic release is a safe and efficacious option for carpal tunnel release. The findings demonstrate encouraging results.

Conclusion

The endoscopic carpal tunnel release with the placement of a MicroAire system is a safe and effective method for treating carpal tunnel syndrome.

Postoperative care via smartphone following carpal tunnel release

Introduction

This study explores a novel smartphone application for postoperative care following carpal tunnel release (CTR). We hypothesized that a software-based ‘virtual visit’ for CTR could be safe, effective and convenient for the patient.

Methods

Our group developed the software application utilized in this study. Interactive steps with video instructions enabled patients to complete dressing and suture removal, capture a wound photo, answer a question about median nerve symptoms and capture a video of finger range of motion. Adult patients undergoing endoscopic or open CTR were enrolled. Prior to their scheduled postoperative visit, patients received and completed the module using their smartphone. Agreement between findings of the virtual visit and the corresponding in-person clinical visit was assessed using kappa values.

Results

Twenty-two patients were contacted regarding study enrolment and 17 patients were enrolled (ages 23–63, mean 48.2, 6M, 11F). Of 16 patients who participated, all completed dressing removal. Ten of 16 patients removed their sutures successfully. Fourteen patients captured a clinically adequate wound photo and 15 patients answered a question about median nerve symptoms. Fourteen patients captured a range of motion video. Software assessments of surgical wounds, nerve symptoms and physical exams agreed strongly with clinical assessments.

Discussion

Most patients were able to respond to a question about their symptoms, provide clinical assessment of their wound via a photo and record a video of their range of motion. Suture removal was the most difficult task. More investigation is needed to determine which patients can reliably remove their sutures.

Cost Implications of Varying the Surgical Technique, Surgical Setting, and Anesthesia Type for Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery

PURPOSE

Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is a common surgical procedure, representing a financial burden to the health care system. The purpose of this study was to test whether the choice of CTR technique (open carpal tunnel release [OCTR] vs endoscopic carpal tunnel release [ECTR]), surgical setting (operating room vs procedure room [PR]), and anesthetic type (local, monitored anesthesia care [MAC], Bier block, general) affected costs or payments.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients undergoing isolated unilateral CTR between July 2014, and October 2017, at a single academic medical center were identified. Patients undergoing ECTR converted to OCTR, revision surgery, or additional procedures were excluded. Using our institution's information technology value tools, we calculated total direct costs (TDCs), total combined payment (TCP), hospital payment, surgeon payment, and anesthesia payment for each surgical encounter. Cost data were normalized using each participant's surgical encounter cost divided by the average cost in the data set and compared across 8 groups (defined by surgery type, operation location, and anesthesia type).

RESULTS

Of 479 included patients, the mean age was 55.3 ± 16.1 years, and 68% were female. Payer mix included commercial (45%), Medicare (37%), Medicaid (13%), workers' compensation (2%), self-pay (1%), and other (3%) insurance types. The TDC and TCP both differed significantly between each CTR group, and OCTR in the PR under local anesthesia was the lowest. The OCTR/local/operating room, OCTR/MAC/operating room, and ECTR/operating room, were associated with 6.3-fold, 11.0-fold, and 12.4-16.6-fold greater TDC than OCTR/local/PR, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing OCTR under local anesthetic in the PR setting significantly minimizes direct surgical encounter costs relative to other surgical methods (ECTR), anesthetic methods (Bier block, MAC, general), and surgical settings (operating room).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study identifies modifiable factors that may lead to cost reductions for CTR surgery.

Our Surgical Experience: Open Versus Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Surgery

Carpal tunnel release is one of the most common hand operations in the United States and every year approximately 500,000 patients undergo surgical release. In this article, we examine the argument for endoscopic carpal tunnel release versus open carpal tunnel release, as well as some of the literature on anatomical variants in the median nerve at the wrist. We further describe the experience of several surgeons in a large academic practice. The goals of this article are to describe key anatomic findings and to present several cases that have persuaded us to favor offering patients open carpal tunnel release.

Economic benefit of carpal tunnel release in the Medicare patient population

OBJECTIVE The epidemiology of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) has been extensively researched. However, data describing the economic burden of CTS is limited. The purpose of this study was to quantify the disease burden of CTS and determine the economic benefit of its surgical management. METHODS The authors utilized the PearlDiver database to identify the number of individuals with CTS in the Medicare patient population, and then utilized CPT codes to identify which individuals underwent surgical management. These data were used to calculate the total number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) associated with CTS. A human capital approach was employed and gross national income per capita was used to calculate the economic burden. RESULTS From 2005 to 2012 there were 1,500,603 individuals identified in the Medicare patient population with the diagnosis of CTS. Without conservative or surgical management, this results in 804,113 DALYs without age weighting and discounting, and 450,235 DALYs with age weighting and a discount rate of 3%. This amounts to between $21.8 and $39 billion in total economic burden, or $2.7-$4.8 billion per year. Surgical management of CTS has resulted in the aversion of 173,000-309,000 DALYs. This has yielded between $780 million and $1.6 billion in economic benefit per year. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release provided between $11,683 and $23,186 per patient at 100% success while open carpal tunnel release provided between $10,711 and $22,132 per patient at 100% success. The benefit-cost ratio at its most conservative is 2.7:1, yet could be as high as 6.9:1. CONCLUSIONS CTS is prevalent in the Medicare patient population, and is associated with a large amount of economic burden. The surgical management of CTS leads to a large reduction in this burden, yielding extraordinary economic benefit.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Making Evidence-Based Treatment Decisions

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity. Comorbidities associated with the development of CTS include diabetes and obesity. Although a high rate of repetitive hand/wrist motions is a risk factor, there is insufficient evidence to implicate computer use in the development of CTS. Initial treatment generally is nonoperative, with the strongest evidence supporting bracing/splinting. Strong evidence supports operative treatment, regardless of technique, as superior to nonoperative treatment. Complications are infrequent and most are minor and transient.

Surgical Education Module Improves Operative Proficiency in Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release: A Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial of Trainees

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether an interactive endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) surgical education module can improve knowledge of surgical indications and improve procedural competency.

DESIGN

An ECTR education module was developed and trainees at various level of training were enrolled and randomized to surgical module and nonmodule (control) groups. Subjects were instructed that they would be the primary surgeon performing an ECTR. A written assessment was administered before and after module completion or independent case preparation to test comprehension of the procedure. The senior author evaluated each subject's intraoperative performance using a 5-point scoring system. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square and paired t-tests.

SETTING

This study took place at a tertiary care hospital at the University of Wisconsin.

RESULTS

In all, 30 subjects were tested (15 surgical module and 15 nonmodule). There were no differences in prepreparation test scores between groups. Postpreparation test scores following use of the module were significantly higher compared to the nonmodule group. The average operation performance scores for the surgical module group and nonmodule group were 96% and 82%, respectively. The surgical module group performed significantly better on all operative steps except for dressing application. Surgical module subjects without prior ECTR experience (n = 7) had operative scores that were significantly higher than those for nonmodule subjects without previous ECTR experience (n = 8) (95% vs. 75%). There was no difference in operative scores between surgical module subjects with no prior experience (n = 7) and nonmodule subjects who had performed at least 1 prior case (n = 7) (95% vs. 89%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an ECTR surgical education module demonstrates a significant benefit in ECTR-naïve subjects. When compared to subjects with previous ECTR experience, ECTR-naïve subjects trained using the surgical module demonstrate better familiarity with the equipment and equivalent performance of the procedure.

Evidence-Based Medicine: Current Evidence in the Diagnosis and Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Create a safe and effective plan for management of carpal tunnel syndrome. 2. Support his or her rationale for the use of diagnostic tests. 3. Discuss elements of management that have been controversial, including anesthesia, the use of a tourniquet, postoperative pain control, and cost of care.

SUMMARY

This is the fourth MOC-PS CME article on carpal tunnel syndrome. Each of the prior three has had a slightly different focus, and the reader is invited to review all to generate a comprehensive view of the management of this common, and often controversial, topic. The operative goal-to release the transverse carpal ligament-is straightforward: diagnosis, cause, and technique have generated more vibrant discussions.

Effectiveness of Surgical and Postsurgical Interventions for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To present an evidence-based overview of the effectiveness of surgical and postsurgical interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched for relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April 8, 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria to select potential studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodologic quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A best-evidence synthesis was performed to summarize the results. Four systematic reviews and 33 RCTs were included. Surgery versus nonsurgical interventions, timing of surgery, and various surgical techniques and postoperative interventions were studied. Corticosteroid injection was more effective than surgery (strong evidence, short-term). Surgery was more effective than splinting or anti-inflammatory drugs plus hand therapy (moderate evidence, midterm and long-term). Manual therapy was more effective than surgical treatment (moderate evidence, short-term and midterm). Within surgery, corticosteroid irrigation of the median nerve before skin closure as additive to CTS release or the direct vision plus tunneling technique was more effective than standard open CTS release (moderate evidence, short-term). Furthermore, short was more effective than long bulky dressings, and a sensory retraining program was more effective than no program after surgery (moderate evidence, short-term). For all other interventions only conflicting, limited, or no evidence was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatment seems to be more effective than splinting or anti-inflammatory drugs plus hand therapy in the short-term, midterm, and/or long-term to treat CTS. However there is strong evidence that a local corticosteroid injection is more effective than surgery in the short-term, and moderate evidence that manual therapy is more effective than surgery in the short-term and midterm. There is no unequivocal evidence that suggests one surgical treatment is more effective than the other. Postsurgical, a short- (2-3 days) favored a long-duration (9-14 days) bulky dressing and a sensory retraining program seems to be more effective than no program in short-term. More research regarding the optimal timing of surgery for CTS is needed.

Improved Surgical Outcomes With Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release in Patients With Severe Median Neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) can be treated with open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) or endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR). Our goal was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ECTR versus OCTR in patients with severe CTS. We hypothesized that ECTR would be as safe and effective as OCTR in these patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with severe CTS who underwent ECTR or OCTR by E. G. Deune between 2001 and 2014. Variables were patient age, sex, relevant medical history, alcohol and tobacco use, and preoperative electromyography and physical examination results. The primary outcome was patient-reported resolution of neuropathic symptoms at last follow-up. Secondary outcomes were surgical complications and need for reoperation. We compared the cohorts using Student's t tests and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

We identified 138 cases of severe CTS in 126 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Thirty-nine cases were treated with ECTR and 99 with OCTR. Mean ages were 59 years (ECTR group) and 56 years (OCTR group). The population was 68% women, and 56% of cases involved the dominant hand. The distributions of age, sex, hand dominance, presence of relevant medical history, and alcohol and tobacco use did not differ significantly between groups. Treatment completely resolved CTS symptoms in 82% of ECTR cases and 39% of OCTR cases. Complication rates (all causes) were similar for both procedures. Recurrence was observed in 2.6% of ECTR cases and 10% of OCTR cases.

CONCLUSIONS

ECTR is a safe and effective alternative to OCTR for patients with severe CTS.