A Novel Supraretinacular Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release: Surgical Technique, Clinical Efficacy and Safety (A Series of 48 Consecutive Cases)

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.

The significance of wrist immobilization for endoscopic carpal tunnel release

Background

Over the years, endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) has gained significant interest as an alternative to surgery. However, no consensus has been reached on the necessity of postoperative wrist immobilization. This study aims to compare the outcomes of wrist immobilization for a period of 2 weeks to immediate wrist mobilization after ECTR.

Methods

A total of 24 patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome undergoing dual-portal ECTR from May 2020 to Feb 2022 were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups postoperatively. In one group, patients wore a wrist splint for 2 weeks. In another group, wrist mobilization was allowed immediately after surgery. The two-point discrimination test (2PD test); the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test (SWM test); the occurrence of pillar pain, digital and wrist range of motion (ROM); grip and pinch strength; the visual analog score (VAS), the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) score; the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score; and complications were evaluated at 2 weeks and 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after the surgery.

Results

All 24 subjects finished this study with no dropouts. During the early follow-up, patients with wrist immobilization demonstrated lower VAS scores, lower occurrence of pillar pain, and higher grip and pinch strength compared with the immediate mobilization group. No significant difference was obtained between these two groups in terms of the 2PD test, the SWM test, digital and wrist ROM, BCTQ, and the DASH score. In total, two patients without splints reported transient scar discomfort. No one complained of neurapraxia, injury of the flexor tendon, median nerve, and major artery. At the final follow-up, no significant difference was found in any parameters between both groups. The local scar discomfort mentioned above disappeared and left no serious sequela.

Conclusion

Wrist immobilization during the early postoperative period demonstrated significant pain alleviation along with stronger grip and pinch strength. However, wrist immobilization yielded no obvious superiority regarding clinical outcomes at the final follow-up.