The Epidemiology of Carpal Tunnel Revision Over a 1-Year Follow-Up Period

Incidence and Risk Factors for Revision Within 1 Year of Primary Carpal Tunnel Release

BACKGROUND

The annual volume of carpal tunnel release (CTR) in the United States has been estimated to be 577 000 per year. Our objectives were to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for revision CTR within 1 year of primary CTR.

METHODS

We identified all adult patients undergoing primary CTR from October 2015 to September 2019 in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. We used the CPT modifier codes to determine laterality of index and revision procedures. We estimated multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models to evaluate risk factors for revision CTR within 1 year.

RESULTS

Of the 80 423 primary CTR procedures, 178 (0.22%) underwent a revision CTR within 1 year of the index surgery. The mean (SD) age of the entire cohort was 58.69 (14.43) years, 61.1% were women, 73.2% were non-Hispanic white, 42.9% were covered through private insurance, and 9.5% had diabetes mellitus. Workers' compensation insurance (odds ratio [OR] = 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-2.98, P = .02) and simultaneous bilateral CTR (OR = 14.91, 95% CI, 9.62-23.12, P < .001) were associated with revision CTR within 1 year of the index procedure. No models demonstrated an association between endoscopic technique or surgeon volume and revision CTR.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of revision CTR within 1 year was lower than that previously reported. Patients covered by workers' compensation and those undergoing simultaneous bilateral CTR had higher likelihood of a revision CTR within 1 year, whereas endoscopic technique and surgeon volume were not associated with revision CTR within 1 year.

Predictors of Successful Outcomes Following Revision Carpal Tunnel Release

PURPOSE

We sought to identify predictors of successful revision carpal tunnel release (CTR) and compare long-term patient-reported outcomes to individuals who underwent primary CTR with no revision. We hypothesized that patients undergoing revision CTR would have worse patient-reported outcomes scores compared to primary CTR at 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared 521 primary CTR and 57 revision CTR patients. Patients with minimum 1-year follow-up, including Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) scores, were included. PASS and PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE), Pain Interference (PI), and Physical Function (PF) were compared at before surgery and 1-year after surgery timepoints. Demographic and surgical data were compared using bivariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with the primary CTR group, the revision group had a higher body mass index, was more likely to be male, have their dominant hand affected, have diabetes, undergo endoscopic CTR, and have concurrent cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS). A chief complaint of pain (OR 0.23), tobacco use (OR 0.11), or diabetes (OR 0.22) were less likely to have a positive PASS response, whereas having an interval steroid injection (OR 6.2) was a predictor of a positive PASS response. PROMIS UE, PF, and PI were all similar in the primary group compared with the revision group at both before surgery and 1-year after surgery visits. None of the PROMIS modalities significantly improved at 1-year follow-up in the primary and revision groups compared to before surgery. Positive PASS response in the revision group was lower preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively compared with the primary cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Steroid injections, absence of diabetes and tobacco use, and chief symptoms of paresthesias or weakness, rather than pain, are predictors of satisfactory outcomes after revision CTR. Patients undergoing revision demonstrated lower rates of positive PASS response than primary CTR without revision at 1-year follow-up.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Early Rates of Revision Surgery in Endoscopic and Open Carpal Tunnel Release

PURPOSE

To compare rates of revision surgery between primary endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR). In addition, we aimed to assess the influence of fellowship training on revision rates. We hypothesized that ECTR would not be associated with higher rates of revision surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, single-center replication study of a recently published comparative assessment of ECTR and OCTR. All patients between 18 and 75 years old undergoing primary ECTR or OCTR over a 6-year period were included if they were seen within 1 year after surgery. To control for confounding, adjusted binary logistic regression models were inverse-weighted by propensity scores. Early (12 months) and overall revision rates were compared between ECTR and OCTR, as were revision rates relative to surgeon training.

RESULTS

A total of 4,160 patients and 63 surgeons were included. Eighty-one percent underwent OCTR. Nine patients (0.21%) underwent revision within 12 months of index CTR at a mean of 231 days postoperatively. The early revision rate for OCTR and ECTR were 0.24% and 0.13%, respectively. After adjusting for patent characteristics and confounding, ECTR cases were 0.28 times (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.90) less likely to undergo revision. Early OCTR revision rates for hand surgeons were similar to nonhand surgeons (0.23% vs 0.24%); however, statistically significant higher revision rates were noted for nonhand surgeons (1.04%) compared to hand surgeons (0.42%) for revisions beyond 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a single health care system, the early revision rate after primary CTR was 0.21%. When adjusting for patient characteristics and controlling for confounding, ECTR was 0.28 times less likely to undergo revision compared to OCTR. Hand fellowship training was associated with lower OCTR revision rates beyond 1 year. These data highlight the need for future investigations to clearly define indications for, and outcomes following, revision CTR.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Comparative analysis of open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release in a comprehensive national database

PURPOSE

Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most common compressive neuropathy. There is limited evidence to support endoscopic compared to open carpal tunnel release according to the 2016 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline on carpal tunnel syndrome. The purpose of the present study was to assess differences between the two procedures by comparing 30- and 90-day complications and mean hospital costs in a large patient population.

METHODS

Using the national Mariner15 Database by PearlDiver Technologies, we retrospectively studied 27,192 carpal tunnel syndrome patients who received carpal tunnel release using an endoscopic or open surgical approach from 2010 to 2019. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were grouped and case-matched at a 1:1 ratio through the corresponding International Classification of Diseases codes (n = 13,596) and assessed for 30- and 90-day complications such as median nerve injury, superficial palmar arch injury, and revision carpal tunnel release surgery. Univariate analysis was used to compare outcomes and a multivariate regression was performed to identify risk factors associated with each outcome.

RESULTS

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release was associated with a higher rate of median nerve injury than open release at 30 days (0.3% vs. 0.1% odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.81; p < 0.05) and 90 days (0.4% vs. 0.3%; odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.70; p < 0.05). Endoscopic release was also associated with a higher rate of superficial palmar arch injury (0.1% vs. 0%; odds ratio, 25.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-423.0; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, risk of median nerve injury and vascular injury was higher after endoscopic than open carpal tunnel release. At 90 days, all-cause revision rates were similar between techniques. Surgeons should understand these differences, to optimize surgical decision-making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IIIa.

Revision Carpal Tunnel Release Following Endoscopic Compared With Open Decompression

Importance

Carpal tunnel release (CTR) technique may influence the likelihood of revision surgery. Prior studies of revision CTR following endoscopic CTR (ECTR) compared with open CTR (OCTR) have been limited by sample size and duration of follow-up.

Objective

To estimate the incidence of revision CTR following ECTR compared with OCTR in a national cohort.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data from the US Veterans Health Administration. Participants included all adults (age ≥18 years) undergoing at least 1 outpatient CTR from October 1, 1999, to May 20, 2021. Data were analyzed from May 21, 2021, to November 27, 2023.

Exposure

Index CTR technique.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to revision CTR, defined as repeat ipsilateral CTR during the study period. Secondary outcomes were indications for revision, findings during revision, and additional procedures performed during revision.

Results

Among 134 851 wrists from 103 455 patients (92 510 [89.4%] male; median [IQR] age, 62 [53-70] years) undergoing at least 1 CTR, 1809 wrists underwent at least 1 revision at a median (IQR) of 2.5 (1.0-3.8) years. In competing-risks analysis, the cumulative incidence of revision was 1.06% (95% CI, 0.99%-1.12%) at 5 years and 1.59% (95% CI, 1.51%-1.67%) at 10 years. ECTR was associated with increased hazard of revision CTR compared with OCTR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.34-1.81; P < .001). The risk difference for revision CTR associated with ECTR compared with OCTR was 0.57% (95% CI, 0.31%-0.84%) at 5 years (number needed to harm, 176) and 0.72% (95% CI, 0.36%-1.07%) at 10 years (number needed to harm, 139). Regardless of index CTR technique, the most common indication for revision was symptom recurrence (1062 wrists [58.7%]). A reconstituted transverse carpal ligament (TCL) was more common after ECTR compared with OCTR, whereas scarring of the overlying tissues and of the median nerve itself were more common following OCTR. Incomplete transverse-carpal-ligament release was observed in 251 of the wrists undergoing revision CTR (13.94%) and was more common among revisions following ECTR (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.11-2.37; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of revision CTR in the Veterans Health Administration, ECTR was associated with increased risk of revision compared with OCTR, but the absolute risk was low regardless of technique. Intraoperative findings at revision varied significantly according to index CTR technique.

Long-Term Clinical Results of Carpal Tunnel Release Using Ultrasound Guidance: A Multicenter Pragmatic Study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to report the 1-year clinical outcomes of carpal tunnel release using ultrasound guidance (CTR-US) performed in a large, real-world population of patients enrolled in a multicenter registry.

Methods

All patients who participated in a postmarket registry study of CTR-US outcomes and provided both preoperative and 1-year postoperative data were included. Main outcomes were the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QDASH), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS), and Boston Carpal Tunnel Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS) scores at 1 year. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the effect of patient and procedural factors on 1-year outcomes.

Results

A total of 300 patients (341 hands) were treated by 25 different physicians, including 41 (13.7%) treated with simultaneous bilateral procedures. Mean patient age was 54.2 years, 63% were women, 24% had ≥2 comorbidities, and 54% had symptoms for >2 years. Mean QDASH scores decreased from 40.6 ± 20.6 to 12.2 ± 18.3 at 1 year, BCTQ-SSS scores decreased from 3.0 ± 0.7 to 1.5 ± 0.7 at 1 year, and BCTQ-FSS scores decreased from 2.4 ± 0.8 to 1.4 ± 0.6 at 1 year. Women improved more than men at 1 year for QDASH, BCTQ-SSS, and BCTQ-FSS. Patients treated with simultaneous bilateral procedures had similar 1-year outcomes to those treated with unilateral procedures. Multiple other factors including high body mass index, diabetes status, current tobacco use, rheumatoid/inflammatory arthritis, operation in the dominant hand, higher comorbidity burden, and concurrent ipsilateral procedures did not significantly affect 1-year outcomes. Two patients had revision surgeries in addition to one patient with an infection, and one with a suspected small finger tendon injury.

Conclusions

Patients treated with CTR-US in real-world conditions report significant and clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms and function that are maintained at 1 year. The results are consistent across broad patient demographics and are not affected by performing simultaneous bilateral procedures.

Type of study/level of evidence

Therapeutic IV.

Intraoperative Conversion From Endoscopic to Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review and Case Series

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, outcomes, and complications associated with conversion from endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) to open carpal tunnel release (OCTR).

METHODS

A retrospective case review of all patients who underwent ECTR over 4 years by 2 fellowship-trained hand surgeons at a single academic center was performed. We recorded outcomes and the reason for conversion in patients who underwent conversion to an OCTR. Baseline demographics and surgical complications were compared between the 2 groups. A systematic review was performed to define the incidence and reasons for conversion from ECTR to OCTR. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we included clinical studies of ECTR from 2000 to 2021.

RESULTS

In the retrospective series, 9 of 892 (1.02%) ECTR cases underwent conversion to an OCTR at the time of the index procedure. One of 9 converted cases had transient neurapraxia involving the recurrent motor branch after surgery compared with 0 cases in the group that underwent ECTR without conversion. Improvements in the visual analog scale for pain and QuickDASH were noted at a mean of 46 weeks after surgery in the group that underwent conversion to OCTR. The systematic review identified an incidence of conversion of 0.62%. The most common reasons for conversion to OCTR in the case series and systematic review were poor visualization due to hypertrophic tenosynovium and aberrant nerve anatomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of intraoperative conversion from ECTR to OCTR during the index procedure was 1.02%, with the most common reasons for conversion being poor visualization due to hypertrophic tenosynovium and aberrant nerve anatomy. Patients who undergo conversion from ECTR to OCTR demonstrate improvements in pain and disability, similar to patients who undergo ECTR without conversion.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Persistent Pain as an Early Indicator for Operative Carpal Tunnel Revision after Primary Release: A Retrospective Analysis of Recurrent and Persistent Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Prolonged symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) after primary carpal tunnel release (CTR) can reduce the quality of life and lead to multiple referrals across specialties. The following study aimed to identify differences in symptoms, signs, and intraoperative findings between recurrent and persistent CTS cases to avoid undesired outcomes after primary CTR.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on revision CTRs performed between 2005 and 2015 using literature-based definitions for recurrent (a relapse of symptoms occurs following a symptom-free period of ≥3 months) and persistent (symptoms persisting longer than three months after surgical release) CTS. The parameters assessed were symptoms, clinical signs, and intraoperative findings.

RESULTS

Out of 53 cases, 85% (n = 45) were external referrals, whereby our own revision rate was 0.67% (n = 8/1199). Paresthesia and numbness were frequent in both groups; however, abnormal postoperative pain was reported more often in persistent cases (86%; n = 30/35) in comparison to recurrent cases (50%; n = 9/18; p = 0.009). Scarring around the median nerve was observed in almost all recurrent cases (94%; n = 17/18) and in 40% (n = 14/35) of persistent cases (p < 0.001). Incomplete division of the palmar ligament was the primary cause for revision in the persistent cohort (49%; n = 17/35).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients experiencing symptoms for more than three months after CTR, primarily presenting as pain, it is advisable to consider referring the patient to a certified hand clinic for additional evaluation.

Management of Failed Carpal and Cubital Tunnel Release: An Evidence-Based Guide to Success

Carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel syndromes are the most common compressive neuropathies of the upper extremity with surgical treatment having high success rates for both conditions. Although uncommon, persistent or recurrent carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome presents a challenge for patients and providers. Diagnosis of persistence versus recurrence of the pathology is key in establishing an appropriate treatment plan to provide the best possible patient outcomes. After an established diagnosis, a wide array of treatment options exist which varies based on previous procedures performed. This review discusses relevant anatomy, etiology, and clinical presentations of persistent and recurrent carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes. The range of treatment options is presented based on history and diagnostic findings. Treatment options span from revision of nerve decompression to the use of soft tissue rearrangement procedures. Some specific treatment options discussed include simple revision nerve decompression, external neurolysis, soft tissue rearrangement, such as the hypothenar fat flap or various transposition techniques, and the use of nerve wraps. Included is an evidence-based management guide for diagnosis and treatment of persistent versus recurrent carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes.

Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Surgery: Risk Factors and Rates of Revision Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of our study was to compare the 1-year revision surgery rates and outcomes of open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release. Our hypothesis was that, compared to open release, endoscopic carpal tunnel release was an independent risk factor for revision surgery within 1-year.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 4338 patients undergoing isolated endoscopic or open carpal tunnel release. Demographic data, medical comorbidities, surgical approach, need for revision surgery, hand dominance, history of prior injection, and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System upper extremity (UE), pain interference (PI) and physical function scores were analyzed. Multivariable analysis was used to identify the risk factors for revision surgery within one year of the index procedure.

RESULTS

In total, 3280 patients (76%) underwent open and 1058 (24%) underwent endoscopic carpal tunnel release. Within one year of the index procedure, 45 patients required revision carpal tunnel release. The average time to revision was 143 days. The rate of revision carpal tunnel release in the open group was 0.71% compared to 2.08% in the endoscopic group. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that endoscopic surgery, male sex, cubital tunnel syndrome, tobacco use, and diabetes were associated independently with revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that endoscopic carpal tunnel release was associated independently with a 2.96 times greater likelihood of requiring revision carpal tunnel release within one year, compared to open carpal tunnel release. Male sex, concurrent cubital tunnel syndrome, tobacco use, and diabetes also were associated independently with greater risk of needing revision carpal tunnel release within one year.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Early Postoperative Recovery after Modified Ultra-Minimally Invasive Sonography-Guided Thread Carpal Tunnel Release

Thread carpal tunnel release (TCTR) has been reported to be safe and effective for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The aim of this study is to evaluate the modified TCTR for safety, efficacy, and postoperative recovery. Seventy-six extremities in 67 patients undergoing TCTR were analyzed pre- and postoperatively using clinical parameters and patient-reported outcome measures. Twenty-nine men and 38 women with a mean age of 59.9 ± 18.9 years underwent TCTR. The mean postoperative time to resume activities of daily living was 5.5 ± 5.5 days, analgesia was completed after 3.7 ± 4.6 days, and return to work was achieved after a mean of 32.6 ± 15.6 days for blue-collar workers and 4.6 ± 4.3 days for white-collar workers. The Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) and Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores were comparable with previous studies. Overall, two persistent compressions and one recurrence required open reoperation (3.9%). All three had been operated in the initial phase, and none required reoperation after an additional safety step was introduced. No other complications occurred. TCTR surgery appears to be a safe and reliable technique with almost no wound and scarring and a potentially faster recovery time than open techniques. Although our technical modifications may reduce the risk of incomplete release, TCTR requires both ultrasound and surgical skills and has a considerable learning curve.

The Environmental Impact of Open Versus Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release

PURPOSE

The environmental impact of common ambulatory hand surgeries has been an area of growing interest in recent years. There were 2 objectives of this study: (1) to quantify the carbon footprint of carpal tunnel surgery and its principal driving components; and (2) to compare the carbon footprints of open carpal tunnel release (oCTR) and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (eCTR).

METHODS

We performed a life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental impacts of 2 surgical procedures: oCTR and eCTR. Patients were retrospectively identified by querying the Mass General Brigham institutional billing database. Fourteen oCTR procedures and 14 eCTR procedures in 28 patients were included in the life cycle assessment. The boundaries of the life cycle assessment were the start and end times of the procedures. The environmental impacts were estimated using the carbon footprint, expressed in the equivalent mass of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere (kgCO₂-eq). The facility-related, processing-related, solid waste-related, and total kgCO₂-eq were calculated.

RESULTS

The average carbon footprint of carpal tunnel release was 83.1 kgCO₂-eq and was dominated by processing-related and facilities-related factors. The average carbon footprint of eCTR (106.5 kgCO₂-eq) was significantly greater than that of oCTR (59.6 kgCO₂-eq).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release leaves a greater carbon footprint than oCTR, and its environmental impact is dominated by facility-related and central processing-related factors.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analyses IV.

Cost Drivers in Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery: An Analysis of 8,717 Patients in New York State

PURPOSE

The annual high volume of carpal tunnel releases (CTRs) has a large financial impact on the health care system. Validating the cost drivers related to CTR in a large, diverse patient population may aid in developing cost reduction strategies to benefit health care systems.

METHODS

Adult patients with carpal tunnel syndrome who underwent CTR were identified in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database from 2016 to 2017. The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System is a comprehensive all-payer database that collects all inpatient and outpatient preadjudicated claims in New York. A multivariable mixed model regression with random effects was performed for the facility to assess the variables that contributed significantly to the total charge. The variables included were patient age, sex, anesthesia method, whether the surgery took place in an ambulatory surgery center or a hospital outpatient department, operation time in minutes, primary insurance type, race, ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and categories for billed procedure codes.

RESULTS

During the period of 2016 to 2017, 8,717 claims were included, with a mean charge per claim of $4,865. General anesthesia was associated with higher charges than local anesthesia. A procedure at a hospital outpatient department was associated with an approximately 48.2% increase in the total charge compared with that at an ambulatory surgery center. A 1-minute increase in the operation time was associated with a 0.3% increase in the total charge. Claims with antiemetics, antihistamines, benzodiazepines, intravenous fluids, narcotic agents, or preoperative antibiotics were associated with higher total charges than claims that did not bill for these. Compared with endoscopic procedures, open procedures had a 44.3% decrease in the total charges.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive multivariable model has validated that general anesthesia, hospital-based surgery, the use of antibiotics and opioids, longer operative times, and endoscopic CTR significantly increased the cost of surgery.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and decision analyses II.

Effects of Cognitive and Mental Health Factors on the Outcomes Following Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of the cognitive and mental health factors on the outcomes after carpal tunnel release (CTR).

DATA SOURCES

Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to August 14, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of patients with CTR were included. The included studies aimed to determine the effect of the cognitive (catastrophic thinking, kinesiophobia, self-efficacy) or mental health factors (symptoms of anxiety and depression) on the outcomes at least 3 months post CTR.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. Data were extracted using a standardized protocol and reporting forms. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies risk-of-bias tool. Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 15 studies involving 2599 patients were included in this systematic review. The majority of studies indicate a significant association between the cognitive or mental health factors and outcomes after CTR. Quantitative analysis showed a moderate association of symptoms of depression on symptom severity (n=531; r=0.347; 95% CI, 0.205-0.475; P≤.0001), function (n=386; r=0.307; 95% CI, 0.132-0.464; P=.0008), and pain (n=344; r=0.431; 95% CI, 0.286-0.558; P≤.0001). In general, the risk of bias in the included studies was low.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that symptoms of depression have a moderate association with symptom severity, function, and pain after CTR. Symptoms of anxiety, catastrophic thinking, and self-efficacy are also important indicators of poor postsurgery outcomes. Physicians, physical therapists, and occupational therapists should consider evaluating these variables in patients undergoing CTR.