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 Recurrent Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Few comparisons have been performed between the outcomes of surgical techniques for recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome. Using a meta-analysis, this study aimed to compare the outcomes of different surgical techniques using the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain as outcomes.

METHODS

The following categories were used to define the study's inclusion criteria: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study design. Studies were examined by 2 reviewers, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. The studies were assigned to 1 of the following treatment groups: decompression with or without neurolysis, autologous fat transfer, hypothenar fat pad, pedicled or free flap, and "other." For our primary outcome, we compared improvement using the BCTQ and VAS for pain between the treatment groups. For our secondary outcome, postoperative BCTQ and VAS pain values were compared.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included: 5 case series with postoperative data only and 9 pre-post studies without a control group. With regard to our primary outcome, the studies reported an average improvement of 1.2 points (95% confidence interval [CI][1.5, 0.9]) on a scale of 1-5 on the symptoms severity scale (SSS) of the BCTQ, 1.9 points (95% CI [1.37, 0.79]) on a scale of 1-5 on the function severity scale of the BCTQ, and 3.8 points (95% CI [4.9, 2.6]) on a scale of 1-10 on the VAS for pain. We only found significantly lesser improvement in the "other" treatment group than in the hypothenar fat pad group and autologous fat transfer group using the SSS. The hypothenar fat pad group had the best reported postoperative SSS score of 1.75 (95% CI [1.24, 2.25]), function severity scale score of 1.55 (95% CI [1.20, 1.90]), and VAS pain score of 1.45 (95% CI [0.83, 2.07]).

CONCLUSIONS

All the techniques showed clinically important improvements in all the outcomes. We found lesser improvement in the "other" treatment group than in the hypothenar fat pad group and autologous fat transfer group using the SSS. We found that the hypothenar fat pad group had the best reported postoperative values in our secondary analysis.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical options for recurrent or persistent carpal tunnel syndrome: simple decompression versus coverage of the median nerve

We performed a systematic review on the success of different surgical techniques for the management of recurrent and persistent carpal tunnel syndrome. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria and were grouped by the type of revision carpal tunnel release, which were simple open release, open release with flap coverage or open release with implant coverage. Meta-analysis showed no difference, and pooled success proportions were 0.89, 0.89 and 0.85 for simple open carpal tunnel release, additional flap coverage and implant groups, respectively. No added value for coverage of the nerve was seen. Our review indicates that simple carpal tunnel release without additional coverage of the median nerve seems preferable as it is less invasive and without additional donor site morbidity. We found that the included studies were of low quality with moderate risk of bias and did not differentiate between persistent and recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome.

Comparison of amniotic membrane transplantation and carpal tunnel syndrome release surgery (CTRS) and CTRS alone: Clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common focal entrapment mononeuropathy, comprising medium nerve chronic inflammation and fibrosis. Although carpal tunnel release surgery (CTRS) has demonstrated to be effective, around 3% to 25% of CTRS show recurrence. Amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) has been used in different pathologies inhibiting inflammation and fibrosis and promoting nerve repair. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of AMT in CTRS. The present study comprised a randomized, single-blind controlled trial to compare the 1-year follow-up outcomes of AMT in CTRS (AMT group) or CTRS alone (control group) in patients with CTS. Thirty-five patients with unilateral or bilateral CTS were enrolled, and 47 wrists were randomized into two groups: the AMT group and the control group. To compare the outcomes, three different questionnaires scores (Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, and Historical-Objective scale) were used. Evaluations were assessed at baseline and at 15 days, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Compared with the control group, the AMT group showed significant (p < 0.05) reductions in all scores from 6 months after surgery until the end of the study. Both AMT and control groups showed significant intragroup differences in all scores, since the first month after surgery until the end of the study in comparison with the baseline scores. Taken together, these results indicate that CTRS in conjunction with AMT is more effective than CTRS alone in patients with CTS at 1-year follow-up. Clinical Trial: NCT04075357; Amniotic Membrane in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery Plus Intraoperative Corticosteroid Injection versus Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery Alone: A Double Blinded Clinical Trial

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a prevalent disease with significant morbidity. The current treatments range from oral medication and local corticosteroid injection to surgical carpal tunnel release (CTR). In this study, we tried to assess the results of Carpal Tunnel Release surgery in combination with the anti-inflammatory effect of local corticosteroid injection. Methods: 65 patients were enrolled by clinical and electrodiagnostic tests and randomly divided into two groups, 32 in group one which underwent surgery with Dexamethasone injection and 33 in group 2 which intervened with carpal tunnel release surgery alone. Data on Boston questionnaire of patients were conducted before and two weeks after surgery. Distal motor and sensory latencies of patients were recorded before and two months after surgery. Mean values were compared between groups before and after surgery. Results: The mean preoperative Boston index was 35.83 in group one and 37.7 in group two, these data postoperative were 15.83 and 19.15 respectively. The mean preoperative distal sensory latency was 54.8 in group one and 47.6 in group two, these data postoperative were 34.1 and 35.1 respectively. The mean preoperative distal motor latency was 63.2 in group one and 62.3 in group two, these data postoperative were 44.5 and 46.55 respectively. Conclusions: CTR surgery plus local corticosteroid injection did not significantly change in results of Electrodiagnostic test or Boston index compared to the non-injection group.

Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after carpal tunnel decompression surgery

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common problem and surgical decompression of the carpal tunnel is the most effective treatment. After surgical decompression, the palmar skin may be closed using either absorbable or non-absorbable sutures. To date, there is conflicting evidence regarding the ideal suture material and this formed the rationale for our review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after elective carpal tunnel decompression surgery in adults on postoperative pain, hand function, scar satisfaction, wound inflammation and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 30 October 2017: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two clinical trials registries on 30 October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing absorbable and non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after any form of carpal tunnel decompression surgery in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The unit of analysis was the hand rather than the patient. We performed meta-analysis of direct comparisons to generate standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in pain scores and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes, such as wound inflammation. The primary outcome was postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included hand function, scar satisfaction, scar inflammation and adverse events (complications). We assessed the quality of evidence for key outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised trials (255 participants). The trials were all European (UK, Republic of Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands). Where quoted, the mean age of participants was between 48 and 53 years. The trials measured outcomes between one and 12 weeks postoperatively.Meta-analysis of postoperative pain scores for absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures at 10 days following open carpal tunnel decompression (OCTD) produced a SMD of 0.03 (95% CI -0.43 to 0.48; 3 studies, number of participants (N) = 137; I2 = 43%); the SMD suggests little or no difference, but with a high degree of uncertainty because of very low-quality evidence. At 10 days following endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression (ECTD), the SMD for postoperative pain with use of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures was -0.81 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.25; 1 study; N = 54); although the SMD is consistent with a large effect, the very low-quality evidence means the results are very uncertain. Only the OCTD studies provided pain data at 6 weeks, when the SMD was 0.06 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.84; 4 studies; N = 175; I2 = 84%), which indicates little or no evidence of difference, but with a high degree of uncertainty (very low-quality evidence). The RR for wound inflammation using absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures after OCTD was 2.28 (95% CI 0.24 to 21.91; N = 95; I2 = 90%) and after ECTD 0.93 (95% CI 0.06 to 14.09; 1 study, N = 54). Any difference in effect on wound inflammation is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low. One study reported postoperative hand function but found no evidence of a difference between suture types at two weeks (mean difference (MD) -0.10, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.33, N = 36), with similar findings at six and 12 weeks. Only the ECTD trial reported scar satisfaction, with 25 out of 28 people reporting a 'nice' result in the absorbable-suture group, versus 18 out of 26 in the group who received non-absorbable sutures (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.72, N = 54). These findings are also very uncertain as we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. All studies were at high risk of bias for most domains. No trials reported adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether absorbable sutures confer better, worse or equivalent outcomes compared to non-absorbable sutures following carpal tunnel decompression, because the quality of evidence is very low. Use of absorbable suture eliminates the need for suture removal, which could confer considerable savings to patients and healthcare providers alike. We need rigorously-performed, non-inferiority randomised trials with economic analyses to inform choice of suture.

Two-point discrimination and kinesthetic sense disorders in productive age individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate two-point discrimination (2PD) sense and kinesthetic sense dysfunctions in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) patients compared with a healthy group.

Methods:

The 2PD sense, muscle force, and kinesthetic differentiation (KD) of strength; the range of motion in radiocarpal articulation; and KD of motion were assessed.

Results:

The 2PD sense assessment showed significantly higher values in all the examined fingers in the CTS group than in those in the healthy group (p<0.01). There was a significant difference in the percentage value of error in KD of pincer and cylindrical grip (p<0.01) as well as in KD of flexion and extension movement in the radiocarpal articulation (p<0.01) between the studied groups.

Conclusions:

There are significant differences in the 2PD sense and KD of strength and movement between CTS patients compared with healthy individuals.