Prospective, randomized evaluation of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome: an interim analysis

Comparing endoscopic and conventional surgery techniques for carpal tunnel syndrome: A retrospective study

Introduction

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) versus open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) in treating carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), focusing on symptom relief, functional recovery and post-operative complications.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 44 patients diagnosed with CTS, randomly assigned to undergo either ECTR (n=23) or OCTR (n=21). Parameters evaluated included post-operative pain, grip strength, functional status using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and time to return to work.

Results

Patients who underwent ECTR demonstrated superior functional recovery and quicker return to daily and work activities compared to those in the OCTR group. Grip strength improvement post-surgery showed no significant difference between the groups. However, ECTR patients reported significantly lower DASH scores and faster return to work, indicating better outcomes. There were fewer reports of post-operative complications and scar sensitivity in the ECTR group.

Conclusion

ECTR provides an effective alternative to OCTR for CTS treatment, with advantages in functional recovery speed, reduced post-operative discomfort and faster return to work. These findings support the adoption of ECTR as a preferred surgical approach for CTS, highlighting its potential to improve patient outcomes with minimal complications.

Registry cost description of carpal tunnel release in Finland in 2011-2015

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we evaluated the amount of public funds spent on the operative treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in Finland in 2011-2015.

DESIGN

A registry-based cost burden study.

SETTING

The data were collected in primary and secondary care in both private and public hospitals, covering the whole population of Finland.

PARTICIPANTS

We collected the total number of patients with new CTS diagnoses and the total number of patients undergoing surgery from the Care Register for Health Care, Finland's national register.

INTERVENTIONS

Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR).

OUTCOME MEASURES

We collected the costs of the OCTR procedure from diagnosis-related group prices. The Social Insurance Institution of Finland provided the total amount of euros reimbursed for sick leaves. We then combined the average amount of reimbursed sick leave with our estimated cost of the treatment chain to approximate the average cost per patient.

RESULTS

The average amount of public funds used for diagnosing and surgically treating new CTS in 2011-2015 in Finland, including reimbursements for sick leaves, was €2759 per patient in 2015 currency. The average direct procedure cost was €1020. We found no clear trend in total cost per patient, but the proportion of surgically treated patients rose from 63.14% to 73.09%. The total annual cost of these treatments was between €18 128 420 and €22 569 973.

CONCLUSIONS

The average amount of public funds used to surgically treat one patient with new CTS in 2011-2015 in Finland was €2759, making the total annual burden €20.7 million.

Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: An Umbrella Review and a Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Whether endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) versus open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) has superior outcomes remains a controversial topic. Therefore, we sought to perform an umbrella review and meta-analysis to compare ECTR and OCTR with regards to (1) postoperative functional ability, (2) operative outcomes, and (3) time to return to work.

METHODS

A PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane database search was conducted for all meta-analyses comparing ECTR and OCTR performed between 2000 and 2022 in accordance to PRISMA and Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for umbrella reviews. The primary outcomes were as follows: (1) functional ability-symptoms severity, postoperative grip strength, postoperative pinch strength, 2-point discrimination, and pain; (2) operative outcomes-operation time, total complications, nerve injury, and scar-related complication; and (3) time to return to work. Quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. Pooled analysis was performed to compare several clinical outcome measures between groups, depending on the availability of data using Review Manager Version 5.2.11.

RESULTS

A total of 9 meta-analyses were included, 5 were of high quality and 4 were moderate quality. For functional ability, ECTR was associated with better pinch strength after 3 months (0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.00, 1.40, P = 0.05) and 6 months (0.77, 95% CI = 0.14, 1.40, P = 0.02, I2 = 84%). For return to work, OCTR was associated with longer return to work compared with ECTR (-10.89, 95% CI = -15.14, -6.64, P < 0.00001, I2= 83%). There were no significant differences between OCTR and ECTR in the hand function, symptom severity, grip strength, pain, operation time, and total complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In an umbrella review and meta-analysis of ECTR versus OCTR, ECTR was associated with a higher pinch strength, and a shorter time to return to work. Differences in major complications, such as nerve injury, were unclear due to statistical inconsistency and bias.

Are Patient Demographics and Payor Status Associated With Practice Patterns in the Surgical Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome?

BACKGROUND

Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) are the 2 operative approaches used to treat carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). This study aims to identify whether differences between OCTR and ECTR rates exist, and, if so, are these differences associated with patient demographics or hospital characteristics.

METHODS

The 2018 Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample (NASS) was filtered for patient encounters including either OCTR or ECTR operations. All patients undergoing either OCTR or ECTR were included, regardless of surgical specialty. Patient demographics and hospital characteristics data, provided and predefined by the NASS database, were collected and compared between the 2 treatment groups.

RESULTS

A total of 180 740 patient encounters were collected for both procedure types (OCTR: 62.4% women, mean age, 58 years; ECTR: 62.2% women, mean age, 58 years). Patients from lower income zip codes were more likely to undergo OCTR (P < .001). Patients either self-paying (P < .008) or covered by Medicare (P < .001) or Medicaid insurance (P < .001) were also more likely to undergo OCTR. In contrast, patients who received care at academic centers and centers with >300 beds were more likely to undergo ECTR (P < .001). Patients <65 years old were more likely to undergo ECTR (P < .001), and patients > 75 years old were more likely to undergo OCTR (P < .001). In addition, ECTR was found to be more expensive, with average total charges $1568 greater than charges for OCTR (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences exist in treatment strategies for CTS and are related to patient income, location, and primary payor status. Differences in OCTR and ECTR rates are also present, and are related to the size and academic status of hospitals.

Wide Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet Surgery of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Patients' Experience and Recall Bias in a Day-Care Setting

Background and Objective: Wide-Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet (WALANT) is a technique of local anesthesia commonly used in the surgical treatment of a wide variety of conditions affecting the upper extremity, including Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS). The recent retrospective studies investigated patient experiences in a wide variety of hand disorder-related cases. The aim of our study is to evaluate patient satisfaction regarding open surgical treatment for CTS using the WALANT technique. Material and Methods: we enrolled 82 patients with CTS without medical record of surgical treatment for CTS. For WALANT, a hand surgeon used a combination of 1:200,000 epinephrine, 1% lidocaine, and 1 mL 8.4% sodium bicarbonate solution without tourniquet application and sedating the patient. All patients were treated in a day-care setting. For assessment of patient experience, Lalonde's questionnaire was adapted. Participants completed survey twice: one month and six months after the surgical treatment was performed. Results: the median pre-operative pain score for all patients was 4 (range 0-8) after one month and 3 (range 1-8) after six months. The median intraoperative pain score for all patients was 1 (range 0-8) after one month and 1 (range 1-7) after six months. The median post-operative pain score for all patients was 3 (range 0-9) after one month and 1 (range 0-8) after six months. More than half (61% after one month and 73% after six months) of the patients responded by stating that their real experience of WALANT was better than their initial expectations. An absolute majority of patients (95% after one month and 90% after six months) would recommend WALANT treatment to their relatives. Conclusions: overall, patient satisfaction with treatment for CTS using WALANT is high. Furthermore, complications related to the performed treatment and persistent post-operative pain could be associated with more reliable patient recall of this healthcare intervention. A longer period of time between intervention and assessment of patient experience could possibly be a reason for recall bias.

An Intraindividual Comparison of Open versus Paine Retinaculotome Release for Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

The main purpose of this research was to do an intraindividual comparison of outcomes between the open ulnar incision (OUI) and the Paine retinaculotome with palmar incision (PRWPI) techniques in patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The patients underwent OUI surgery on one hand and PRWPI surgery on the contralateral hand. The patients were evaluated with the Boston carpal tunnel questionnaire, visual analogue scale for pain, palmar grip strength, and fingertip, key, and tripod pinch strengths. Both hands were examined in the preoperative and postoperative periods after 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 and 6 months. Eighteen patients (36 hands) were evaluated. The symptoms severity scale (SSS) scores were higher, in the preoperative period, in the hands that underwent surgery with PRWPI ( p -value = 0,023), but lower in the 3rd month postoperative ( p -value = 0.030). The functional status scale (FSS) scores were lower in the periods of 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months ( p -value = 0,016) on the hands that underwent surgery with PRWPI. In a different two-group module study, the PRWPI group presents the SSS scores average on the 2nd week and 1st month, and the FSS scores average on the 2nd week, less 0.8 and 1.2 points respectively comported to open group. The hands that underwent surgery with PRWPI presented significantly lower SSS scores at 3 months postoperative, and lower FSS scores at 2 weeks, and 3 and 6 months postoperative, compared to open surgery group.

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.

Research advances and trends in the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome from 2003 to 2022: A CiteSpace-based bibliometric analysis

Background

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is one of the most common peripheral neuropathies. The typical symptoms are tingling and numbness in the median nerve distribution of the hand. Current treatment for CTS includes general conservative treatment and surgical treatment. Surgical treatment plays a crucial role in the management of CTS, but little bibliometric analysis has been conducted on it. Therefore, this study aimed to map the literature co-citation network using CiteSpace (6.1 R4) software. Research frontiers and trends were identified by retrieving subject headings with significant changing word frequency trends, which can be used to predict future research advances in the surgical treatment of CTS.

Methods

Publications on the surgical treatment of CTS in the Web of Science database were collected between 2003 and 2022. CiteSpace software was applied to visualize and analyze publications, countries, institutions, journals, authors, references, and keywords.

Results

A total of 336 articles were collected, with the USA being the major publishing power in all countries/regions. JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY AMERICAN VOLUME was the journal with the most published and co-cited articles. Based on keyword and reference co-citation analysis, keywords such as CTS, surgery, release, median nerve, and diagnosis were the focus of the study.

Conclusion

The results of this bibliometric study provide clinical research advances and trends in the surgical treatment of patients with CTS over the past 20 years, which may help researchers to identify hot topics and explore new directions for future research in the field.

Understanding carpal tunnel syndrome

ABSTRACT

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is an entrapment neuropathy affecting the median nerve. Prevalence is estimated at 4% to 5% of the population. A solid understanding of the anatomy, presentation, and diagnostics is key to efficient diagnosis and appropriate referral. Both surgical and nonsurgical interventions have led to improved clinical outcomes. Clinicians who have an in-depth knowledge of CTS symptoms and treatment options can prepare patients and streamline referrals for improved patient outcomes.

Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Genetics of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Review

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common peripheral canalicular nerve entrapment syndrome in the upper extremities. The compression of or injury to the median nerve at the wrist as it passes through a space-limited osteofibrous carpal canal can cause CTS, resulting in hand pain and impaired function. The present paper reviews the literature on the prevalence, pathology, diagnosis, treatment, and risk factors of CTS in conjunction with the role of genetic factors in CTS etiology. CTS diagnosis is primarily linked with clinical symptoms; still, it is simplified by sophisticated approaches such as magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. CTS symptoms can be ameliorated through conservative and surgical strategies. The exact CTS pathophysiology needs clarification. Genetic predispositions to CTS are augmented by various variants within genes; however, CTS etiology could include risk factors such as wrist movements, injury, and specific conditions (e.g., age, body mass index, sex, and cardiovascular conditions). The high prevalence of CTS diminishes the quality of life of its sufferers and imposes costs on health systems, hence the significance of research and clinical trials to elucidate CTS pathogenesis and develop novel therapeutic targets.

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.

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.

Early Outcomes of Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release

PURPOSE

To compare the short-term outcomes of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), including patient-reported outcomes, pain and satisfaction scores, return to work, and postoperative prescription pain medication use.

METHODS

We included all patients over 18 years of age undergoing carpal tunnel release at a single hand center between January 2018 and December 2019. The carpal tunnel release method was driven by variations in surgeon practice. Data from patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) questionnaires and brief Michigan hand outcomes questionnaires and data on patient-reported pain levels, satisfaction with care, return to work, and postoperative prescription pain medication use were collected at preoperative visits and the first follow-up visit between postoperative days 7 and 14.

RESULTS

We included 678 (586 ECTR and 92 OCTR) patients. The median age was 58 years, and 75% of the patients were women. At early follow up, patients who underwent OCTR reported significantly lower postoperative PROMIS upper-extremity scores than those who underwent ECTR (median, 32 vs 36 points, respectively) but similar postoperative PROMIS pain interference, global physical health, global mental health, and brief Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire scores. The postoperative pain and satisfaction scores were similar between the 2 groups. In multivariable models, patients who underwent OCTR had 62% lower odds of returning to work and 30% greater odds of remaining on a postoperative pain prescription at the first follow-up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found no evidence suggesting the definitive superiority of 1 surgical technique with regard to clinical outcomes in the early postoperative period. However, OCTR was associated with lower postoperative PROMIS upper-extremity scores of unclear clinical significance, higher odds of remaining on pain medication, and lower odds of returning to work by the first postoperative visit. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release may be preferred in patients who need to return to work within the first 2 weeks after the procedure.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Compression Neuropathies of the Upper Extremity: A Review

Compressive neuropathies of the forearm are common and involve structures innervated by the median, ulnar, and radial nerves. A thorough patient history, occupational history, and physical examination can aid diagnosis. Electromyography, X-ray, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging may prove useful in select syndromes. Generally, first line therapy of all compressive neuropathies consists of activity modification, rest, splinting, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Many patients experience improvement with conservative measures. For those lacking adequate response, steroid injections may improve symptoms. Surgical release is the last line therapy and has varied outcomes depending on the compression. Carpal Tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common, followed by ulnar tunnel syndrome. Open and endoscopic CTS release appear to have similar outcomes. Endoscopic release appears to incur decreased cost baring a low rate of complications, although this is debated in the literature. Additional syndromes of median nerve compression include pronator syndrome (PS), anterior interosseous syndrome, and ligament of Struthers syndrome. Ulnar nerve compressive neuropathies include cubital tunnel syndrome and Guyon’s canal. Radial nerve compressive neuropathies include radial tunnel syndrome and Wartenberg’s syndrome. The goal of this review is to provide all clinicians with guidance on diagnosis and treatment of commonly encountered compressive neuropathies of the forearm.

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.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between open and modified endoscopic release for carpal tunnel syndrome

The aim of the present study was to investigate a novel technology, requiring only a single portal and no special equipment, to perform endoscopic treatment of carpal tunnel (CT) syndrome (CTS). This novel technique involves a surgical approach and standard operating procedures and is designed to minimize the potential for complications. Patients with CTS were randomly assigned using a computer-generated random allocation and stratified by site to either the modified endoscopic CT release (MECTR) group (n=48) or open CT release (OCTR) group (n=46). Various medical indexes were compared between the two groups, including operative time, hospitalization time, the time required to resume a normal life or work, intraoperative complications, incision infection rate, the amelioration of symptoms (Kelly grading), post-operative scar pain score, recovery of grip strength and pinch strength, two-point discrimination and the presence of sympathetic dystrophy. The results revealed that all patients had grade A wound healing and the symptoms were completely relieved. No significant differences were observed between the two groups with regards to the incision infection rate, intraoperative complications, grip strength, pinch strength, two-point discrimination, presence of sympathetic dystrophy and clinical symptom amelioration. In addition, compared with the OCTR group, the MECTR group had a decreased operative and hospitalization time, post-operative scar pain score and time required to resume a normal lifestyle. Post-operative electromyographic examination also revealed that the median nerve sensory conduction speed increased compared with that prior to surgery in both groups. In conclusion, the use of MECTR for the treatment of CTS achieved higher patient satisfaction, a shorter operative time and hospitalization time, an earlier return to work time or resumption of a normal life, as well as less post-operative scar pain compared with OCTR. Thus, these results suggested that MECTR may be an effective method for the treatment of idiopathic CTS. Trial registration no. ChiCTR2000041165, retrospectively registered 20th December 2020.

Multistate Comparison of Cost, Trends, and Complications in Open Versus Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release

Background: Surgical carpal tunnel release is performed by either open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) or endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR). The purpose of this study was to assess differences in intraoperative and postoperative complications, trends, and costs between OCTR and ECTR. Methods: State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD) files for California, Florida, and New Jersey were queried for patients who underwent OCTR and ECTR between 2000 and 2014. Patient demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and cost were compared between OCTR and ECTR. The frequency of each procedure was used to formulate trends in OCTR and ECTR. Results: A total of 571 403 patients were included in this study. Sex was significantly different by a small percentage (OCTR = 64.8% female, ECTR = 65.4% female). A higher proportion of Hispanic patients underwent ECTR (P < .001). The patients who underwent OCTR had a greater comorbidity burden in terms of diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis (P < .001). None of the aforementioned complication rates were statistically significant between the 2 procedures. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release was significantly more costly by almost $2000. Open carpal tunnel release has remained stable over the years studied, whereas ECTR increased 3-fold. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate no significant differences between OCTR and ECTR regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications and patient outcomes. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release was found to be significantly more costly.

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.

Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes

Carpal tunnel is the most common peripheral compressive neuropathy. Nonoperative management may provide temporary alleviation of symptoms, but in most cases surgical decompression is warranted. There are a multitude of approaches ranging from open release under general anesthesia to wide awake in-office endoscopic carpal tunnel release. The present article describes the technical considerations for the single incision, antegrade approach to endoscopic carpal tunnel release using the SEGWay system and technique.

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.

Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most common compressive neuropathy encountered by hand and upper extremity surgeons. The predominant presentation includes symptomatic paresthesias in the median nerve distribution of the affected hand, frequently causing nocturnal disturbances. Surgical treatment requires division of the transverse carpal ligament, which can be performed through open and endoscopic means. Endoscopic techniques have evolved significantly since they were first introduced in the late 1980s. This manuscript reviews the literature to summarize the current state of carpal tunnel surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

While endoscopic techniques have demonstrated superior early functional outcomes and a more rapid recovery, there are lingering concerns over the potential for nerve, vessel, and tendon injuries. These concerns have not been validated by the hand surgery literature, which ascribes similar rates of complications for both open and endoscopic surgical approaches. Moreover, patients report greater satisfaction with endoscopic surgical approaches compared with open techniques. In summary, the debate between proponents of open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel surgery continues. While surgeons who employ endoscopic techniques appear to be in the minority, there is a plethora of evidence to suggest that both approaches are comparably safe and equally effective.

Trends and Complications in Open Versus Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release in Private Payer and Medicare Patient Populations

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to report trends, complications, and costs associated with endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR). Methods: Using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes, patients who had open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release (CTR) were identified retrospectively in the PearlDiver database from both the Medicare and Humana (a private payer health insurance) populations from 2005 to 2014. These groups were then evaluated for postoperative complications, including wound infection within 90 days, wound dehiscence within 90 days, and intraoperative median nerve injury. We also used the data output for each group to compare the cost of the 2 procedure types. Data were analyzed via the Student t test. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results: A significantly lower percentage of patients in the endoscopic CTR group had a postoperative infection (5.21 vs 7.97 per 1000 patients per year, P < .001; 7.36 vs 11.23 per 1000 patients per year, P < .001) and wound dehiscence (1.58 vs 2.87 per 1000 patients per year, P < .001; 2.14 vs 3.73 per 1000 patients per year, P < .05) than open CTR group in the Medicare and Humana populations, respectively. Median nerve injury occurred 0.59/1000 ECTRs versus 1.69/1000 OCTRs (Medicare) and 1.96/1000 ECTRs versus 3.72/1000 OCTRs (Humana). Endoscopic CTR cost was more than open CTR for both the Medicare population ($1643 vs $1015 per procedure, P < .001) and Humana population ($1928 vs $1191 per procedure, P < .001). Conclusions: In both the Medicare and private insurance patient populations, endoscopic CTR is associated with fewer postoperative complications than open CTR, but is associated with greater expenses.

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.

Anomalous Muscles of the Wrist Encountered During Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Anomalous muscles of the wrist are infrequently encountered during carpal tunnel surgery. Anatomic variants of the palmaris longus (PL), flexor digitorum superficialis, lumbricalis and abductor digiti minimi (ADM) have been reported but are usually clinically insignificant. Anomalies of the wrist muscles, encountered during endoscopic carpal tunnel surgery have rarely been described. I conducted this study to evaluate muscular anomalies of the volar aspect of the wrist, encountered during endoscopic carpal tunnel surgery.

METHODS

I studied a consecutive series of 1235 hands in 809 patients with carpal tunnel syndrome who underwent single-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) from 2002 to 2014. Nine hundred seventy-three hands in 644 patients who had minimal 6-month postoperative follow-up were included in the study. The postoperative surgical outcome was assessed at least 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

In eight patients, anomalous muscles were found under the antebrachial fascia at the proximal wrist crease and superficial to the ulnar bursa, passing superficial to the transverse carpal ligament . Those anomalous muscles were presumed to be variants of the PL or accessory ADM muscle, necessitating splitting and retraction to enter the carpal tunnel during the ECTR procedure. Other muscle anomalies were not seen within the carpal tunnel on the endoscopic view. The surgical outcome for all eight wrists was successful at the 6-month postoperative follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Carpal tunnel surgeons, especially those using an endoscope should be familiar with unusual findings of anomalous muscles of the wrist because early recognition of those muscles can contribute to avoiding unnecessary surgical exploration and unsuccessful surgical outcomes.

Intra-individual evaluation of results between open and endoscopic release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome

Objective

The authors performed an intra-individual comparison of surgical results between the open and endoscopic surgical techniques in patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Each hand was submitted to surgery using one of these techniques.

Methods

Fifteen patients (30 hands) were evaluated by the Boston Questionnaire, visual analogue pain scale, palmar grip strength, and for tip, key, and tripod pinch strengths. These measurements were taken before surgery and at two weeks, one month, three months, and six months after the procedure. Scores for each evaluation tool in each evaluation time period were compared.

Results

In comparison to the group submitted to open surgery, the group submitted to endoscopic surgery had worse scores in the evaluation of the 1st and 6th postoperative months regarding the severity of the symptoms. The authors found no differences in the functional status of the hand. Regarding the intensity of pain evaluated by the visual analogue pain scale, no difference was found between the averages in all time periods evaluated. No differences in palmar grip strength and in fingertip, key (lateral), and tripod pinch strengths were found in all time periods. There were no differences between averages in the preoperative period at two weeks, one month, and three months after surgery. After six months, the group of patients submitted to open surgery presented greater tripod force than the group of patients who underwent endoscopic surgery.

Conclusion

No differences were observed by using the intra-individual evaluation in the results between open and endoscopic techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

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.

Patient-Related Risk Factors for Infection Following Open Carpal Tunnel Release: An Analysis of Over 450,000 Medicare Patients

PURPOSE

To establish the rate of postoperative infection after open carpal tunnel release (CTR) on a national level using an administrative database and define relevant patient-related risk factors associated with its occurrence.

METHODS

The PearlDiver patient records database was used to query the 100% Medicare Standard Analytic Files retrospectively from 2005 to 2012 for patients undergoing open CTR using Current Procedural Terminology code 64721. Postoperative infection within 90 days of surgery was assessed using both International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for diagnoses of postoperative infection or pyogenic arthritis of the wrist and Current Procedural Terminology codes for procedures for these indications, including either open or arthroscopic irrigation and debridement. We used a multivariable binomial logistic regression model that allows for assessment of the independent effect of a variable while controlling for remaining variables to evaluate which patient demographics and medical comorbidities were associated with an increased risk for postoperative infection. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each risk factor, with P < .05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 454,987 patients met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these patients, 1,466 developed a postoperative infection, corresponding to an infection rate of 0.32%. Independent positive risk factors for infection included younger age, male sex, obesity (body mass index of 30 to 40), morbid obesity (body mass index greater than 40), tobacco use, alcohol use, and numerous medical comorbidities including diabetes, inflammatory arthritis, peripheral vascular disease, chronic liver disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, and depression.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study reinforced conventional wisdom regarding the the overall low infection rate after CTR and revealed numerous patient-related risk factors that are independently associated with an increased risk of infection after open CTR in patients enrolled in Medicare.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Carpal tunnel release with a new mini-incision approach versus a conventional approach, a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

We have make use of a new method to perform carpal tunnel release (CTR) through a 1.5-2.0 cm long incision The aim of this study is to introduce this method and to compare the effectiveness and safety of this approach to the conventional one.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients diagnosed with primary carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) who had CTR from January 2015 to September 2016. A total of 85 patients were included in our study. Among them, 42 patients with mini-incision approach were enrolled in group A, and the other 43 patients with conventional approach were enrolled in group B. Objective tests and subjective evaluations were performed to compare the outcomes of mini-incision approach with the conventional approach. Postoperative complications after the two approaches were also compared.

RESULTS

At the 12-months follow-up, all patients in both groups got recovery. We found no significant differences between the two groups in postoperative pinch strength, grip strength, 2-point discrimination (2-PD), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Levine score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score (P > 0.05). However, at the one-month follow-up, the percentage of patients with wound pain in group A was significantly lower than that in group B (0.05% vs. 0.23%, P = 0.03). At the 12 months follow-up, the number of patients with persistent wound pain and pillar pain in group B were 2 (4.7%) and 3 (7.0%) respectively, while no patients showed wound pain and pillar pain in group A.

CONCLUSION

Patients with mini-incision approach have satisfactory surgical outcomes, low postoperative complications, and good appearance.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Surgical Fixation of Distal Radial Fractures: A Computer Model-Based Evaluation of Three Operative Modalities

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the optimal fixation method for patients who require a surgical procedure for distal radial fractures. We used cost-effectiveness analyses to determine which of 3 modalities offers the best value: closed reduction and percutaneous pinning, open reduction and internal fixation, or external fixation.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model that projected short-term and long-term health benefits and costs in patients undergoing a surgical procedure for a distal radial fracture. Simulations began at the patient age of 50 years and were run over the patient's lifetime. The analysis was conducted from health-care payer and societal perspectives. We estimated transition probabilities and quality-of-life values from the literature and determined costs from Medicare reimbursement schedules in 2016 U.S. dollars. Suboptimal postoperative outcomes were determined by rates of reduction loss (4% for closed reduction and percutaneous pinning, 1% for open reduction and internal fixation, and 11% for external fixation) and rates of orthopaedic complications. Procedural costs were $7,638 for closed reduction and percutaneous pinning, $10,170 for open reduction and internal fixation, and $9,886 for external fixation. Outputs were total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% per year. We considered willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the impact of data uncertainty.

RESULTS

From the health-care payer perspective, closed reduction and percutaneous pinning dominated (i.e., produced greater QALYs at lower costs than) open reduction and internal fixation and dominated external fixation. From the societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for closed reduction and percutaneous pinning compared with open reduction and internal fixation was $21,058 per QALY and external fixation was dominated. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, open reduction and internal fixation was cost-effective roughly 50% of the time compared with roughly 45% for closed reduction and percutaneous pinning.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering data uncertainty, there is only a 5% to 10% difference in the frequency of probability combinations that find open reduction and internal fixation to be more cost-effective. The current degree of uncertainty in the data produces difficulty in distinguishing either strategy as being more cost-effective overall and thus it may be left to surgeon and patient shared decision-making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

The Effect of Hand Dominance on Patient-Reported Outcomes of Carpal Tunnel Release in Patients with Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of studies in published literature that examines the effect of hand dominance on the resolution of symptoms following a carpal tunnel release. The objective of this study is to examine the effect of hand dominance on the resolution of symptoms following surgical decompression in patients with severe and moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

Bilateral carpal tunnel release (total 90 open and 84 endoscopic) was performed on 87 patients (11 males, 76 females) presenting with bilateral severe or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome of equal severity. Patient-reported outcome of resolution of symptoms were recorded, with patients followed up until complete resolution of symptoms or last recorded consultation (mean follow-up duration 11.4 months, range 3.1 to 32.4 months).

RESULTS

In patients with bilateral severe carpal tunnel syndrome, a larger proportion of non-dominant hand (75.4%) achieved complete resolution compared to dominant hand (72.1%), and did so at a statistically shorter time (mean: 52.3 days) than the dominant hand (mean: 81.0 days). However, there was no statistically significant difference between proportion of patients and time taken before complete resolution of symptoms between dominant and non-dominant hand in patients with bilateral moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptoms in the non-dominant hand resolved faster after carpal tunnel release in patients with severe carpal tunnel syndrome. We postulate that greater daily activity by the dominant hand compared to the non-dominant hand may be a contributing factor to its slower rate of symptoms resolution post-surgically in patients with bilateral severe carpal tunnel syndrome. This effect of hand dominance is not evident in post-surgical patients with moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.

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.

Efficacy of Keyhole Approach to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome under Ambulatory Strategy

The carpal tunnel syndrome is one of the most common entrapment neuropathies found in humans. Currently, the gold standard is surgical treatment using different modalities. The minimally invasive strategy with high resolution capacity and less morbidity is still a challenge. Methods. Prospective nonrandomised clinical trial in which a minimally invasive microsurgical approach was used following the keyhole principle in 55 consecutive patients and 65 hands under local anesthesia and ambulatory strategy. They were evaluated with stringent inclusion criteria with the Levine severity and functional status scale and with a 2-year follow-up. Results. 90% showed immediate improvement dropping to grades 1-2 in all items of the scale referring to pain and numbness. 97% reported improvement, as of the first month, and 3% reported persistence of symptoms, although at a lesser degree and with no functional limitation. No incidents were identified during the procedure and 98% of patients were discharged within an hour after the surgical procedure. Conclusions. The microsurgical approach described following the keyhole principle is a treatment option that, under local anesthesia and ambulatory management, may represent an alternative strategy of an effective treatment reducing the morbidity. This trial is registered with Clinical Trials Protocol Identifier NCT03062722.

Surgical Approach and Anesthetic Modality for Carpal Tunnel Release: A Nationwide Database Study With Health Care Cost Implications

Background: Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is commonly performed for carpal tunnel syndrome once conservative treatment has failed. Operative technique and anesthetic modality vary by surgeon preference and patient factors. However, CTR practices and anesthetic trends have, to date, not been described on a nationwide scale in the United States. Methods: The PearlDiver Patient Records Database was used to search Current Procedural Terminology codes for elective CTR from 2007 to 2011. Anesthetic modality (eg, general and regional anesthesia vs local anesthesia) and surgical approach (eg, endoscopic vs open) were recorded for this patient population. Cost analysis, patient demographics, regional variation, and annual changes in CTR surgery were evaluated. Results: We identified 86 687 patients who underwent carpal tunnel surgery during this 5-year time period. In this patient sample, 80.5% of CTR procedures were performed using general or regional anesthesia, compared with 19.5% of procedures performed using local anesthesia; 83.9% of all CTR were performed in an open fashion, and 16.1% were performed using an endoscopic technique. Endoscopic surgery was on average $794 more expensive than open surgery, and general or regional anesthesia was $654 more costly than local anesthesia. Conclusions: In the United States, open CTR under local anesthesia is the most cost-effective way to perform a CTR. However, only a small fraction of elective CTR procedures are performed with this technique, representing a potential area for significant health care cost savings. In addition, regional and age variations exist in procedure and anesthetic type utilized.

Carpal tunnel syndrome: clinical features, diagnosis, and management

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

Intraindividual comparison between open and endoscopic release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

This study evaluated functional outcomes and safety after endoscopic and open bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome release in opposite hands of the same patients through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving both methods in opposite hands of patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome were identified via a systematic review of PUBMED and EMBASE.

RESULTS

Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from five randomized controlled trials involving 142 patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome were calculated using fixed- or random-effect methods, with a length of follow-up from 24 to 52 weeks after surgery. Compared with open release, endoscopic carpal tunnel release was associated with significantly better Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire functional status scores (mean difference [MD] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.02 - 0.25]; P = 0.02), but not symptom severity scores (RR = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15 to 0.04]; P = 0.25). Endoscopic release required a longer operative time, but the procedures did not differ significantly in visual analog scale pain scores (MD = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.08 to 0.11]; P = 0.75), handgrip strength (MD = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.03 to 2.37]; P = 0.88), digital sensibility static two-point discrimination (MD = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.03 to 0.70]; P = 0.07), or complication rates (MD = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.05], P = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

From intraindividual evidence, endoscopic release promoted better recovery of daily life functions than open release, but required a longer operative time. The procedures provided similar symptom relief and hand strength and sensibility recovery, and were safe for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.

Similar effectiveness of the open versus endoscopic technique for carpal tunnel syndrome: a prospective randomized trial

This prospective randomized study aims at evaluating the electrophysiological results of endoscopic and open carpal ligament release in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Included in the study were 41 patients diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome (21 hands in the endoscopic group and 20 hands in the open group). The Boston questionnaire was administered preoperatively and postoperatively to the patients, and their functional capacities and symptom severities were recorded. Physical examination was carried out preoperatively and in the postoperative sixth month. Demographic data and preoperative Boston symptomatic and functional scores were similar between both groups. A significant improvement was obtained in the Boston symptomatic and functional scores of both groups, but no significant difference was found between the groups in terms of improvement in the symptomatic and the functional scores. A significant shortening in median nerve motor distal latency and an increase in the velocity of sensory conductions were determined in both groups in the postoperative electromyography, but no difference was found between them in terms of improvement in the electromyography values. It was shown both clinically and electrophysiologically that endoscopic carpal tunnel surgery was as effective as open surgery as a treatment method for carpal tunnel syndrome.

Complications of compressive neuropathy: prevention and management strategies

Compressive neuropathies of the upper extremity are common and can result in profound disability if left untreated. Nerve releases are frequently performed, but can be complicated by both iatrogenic events and progression of neuropathy. In this review, we examine the management of postoperative complications after 2 common nerve compression release procedures: carpal tunnel release and cubital tunnel release.