Long-term Outcome of Local Steroid Injections Versus Surgery in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Observational Extension of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Predictors and Variation in Steroid Injection Use for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from a Multicenter Quality Collaborative

BACKGROUND

Steroid injections are commonly used as first-line treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS); however, research has shown that their benefit is generally short term, and many patients go on to receive carpal tunnel release (CTR). The purpose of this study was to determine the variation in steroid injection use by hand surgeons.

METHODS

The authors analyzed data from a nine-center hand surgery quality collaborative. Data from 1586 patients (2381 hands) were included if they underwent elective CTR at one of the sites. Mixed effects logistic regression models were used to examine the association of receipt of steroid injection and association of receipt of more than one steroid injection among patient-level covariates.

RESULTS

Steroid injection use significantly varied by practice, ranging from 12% to 53% of patients. The odds of receiving a steroid injection were 1.4 times higher for women ( P < 0.01), 1.6 times higher for patients with chronic pain syndrome ( P < 0.01), 0.5 times lower for patients with moderate electromyography (EMG) classification, and 0.4 times lower for patients with severe EMG classification (both P < 0.01). Patients with high scores on the Six-Item CTS Scale ( P = 0.02) and patients with moderate ( P = 0.04) or severe EMG ( P = 0.05) classification had lower odds of receiving multiple steroid injections. Complete symptomatic improvement after steroid injection was significantly reported by patients with a high Six-Item CTS Scale score ( P = 0.03) and patients with severe EMG classification ( P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found wide patient-level and practice-level variation in the use of steroid injections before CTR. These findings underscore the need for improved data and standard practice guidelines regarding which patients benefit from steroid injection.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Clinical Results of Carpal Tunnel Release Using Ultrasound Guidance in Over 100 Patients at Two to Six Years

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical results of carpal tunnel release using ultrasound guidance (CTR-US) at a minimum of 2 years postprocedure.

Methods

The study consisted of 102 patients (162 hands) treated with CTR-US by the same physician between June 2017 and October 2020 for whom minimum 2-year follow-up data were available. Questionnaires were sent to gather long-term information, with additional phone calls for clarification if needed. Outcomes included Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire symptom severity (BCTQ-SSS) and functional status (BCTQ-FSS) scores; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) scores; global satisfaction scores; and subsequent surgeries.

Results

The 102 patients included 68 females and 34 males with a mean age of 56.9 years at the time of surgery. Fifty-five (53.9%) patients had simultaneous bilateral procedures, 42 (41.2%) had unilateral procedures, and 5 (4.9%) had staged bilateral procedures. Significant improvements in BCTQ-SSS, BCTQ-FSS, and QuickDASH scores persisted at a mean final follow-up of 46 months (range 2-6 years). At final follow-up, 91.2% of patients reported satisfaction with the procedure. No outcomes were significantly different between those treated with simultaneous bilateral versus unilateral procedures. No revision surgeries were reported.

Conclusions

CTR-US is a safe and effective procedure that results in significant improvements that persist up to 6 years postprocedure. Long-term results of simultaneous bilateral and unilateral procedures are similar.

Type of study/level of evidence

Therapeutic IV.

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.

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compression neuropathy of the median nerve at the wrist. Surgery is considered when symptoms persist despite the use of non-surgical treatments. It is unclear whether surgery produces a better outcome than non-surgical therapy. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of carpal tunnel release compared with non-surgical treatment in the short (< 3 months) and long (> 3 months) term.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update, we included studies from the previous version of this review and searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP until 18 November 2022. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing any surgical technique with any non-surgical therapies for CTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

The 14 included studies randomised 1231 participants (1293 wrists). Eighty-four per cent of participants were women. The mean age ranged from 32 to 53 years, and the mean duration of symptoms from 31 weeks to 3.5 years. Trial sizes varied from 22 to 176 participants. The studies compared surgery with: splinting, corticosteroid injection, splinting and corticosteroid injection, platelet-rich plasma injection, manual therapy, multimodal non-operative treatment, unspecified medical treatment and hand support, and surgery and corticosteroid injection with corticosteroid injection alone. Since surgery is generally used for its long-term effects, this abstract presents only long-term results for surgery versus splinting and surgery versus corticosteroid injection. 1) Surgery compared to splinting in the long term (> 3 months) Surgery probably results in a higher rate of clinical improvement (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 4.24; 3 studies, 210 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Surgery probably does not provide clinically important benefit in symptoms or hand function compared with splinting (moderate-certainty evidence). The mean Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (scale 1 to 5; higher is worse; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) = 1) was 1.54 with splint and 0.26 points better with surgery (95% CI 0.52 better to 0.01 worse; 2 studies, 195 participants). The mean BCTQ Functional Status Scale (scale 1 to 5; higher is worse; MCID 0.7) was 1.75 with splint and 0.36 points better with surgery (95% CI 0.62 better to 0.09 better; 2 studies, 195 participants). None of the studies reported pain. Surgery may not provide better health-related quality of life compared with splinting (low-certainty evidence). The mean EQ-5D index (scale 0 to 1; higher is better; MCID 0.074) was 0.81 with splinting and 0.04 points better with surgery (95% CI 0.0 to 0.08 better; 1 study, 167 participants). We are uncertain about the risk of adverse effects (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were reported amongst 60 of 98 participants (61%) in the surgery group and 46 of 112 participants (41%) in the splinting group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.37 to 12.12; 2 studies, 210 participants). Surgery probably reduces the risk of further surgery; 41 of 93 participants (44%) were referred to surgery in the splinting group and 0 of 83 participants (0%) repeated surgery in the surgery group (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 2 studies, 176 participants). This corresponds to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 2 (95% CI 1 to 9). 2) Surgery compared to corticosteroid injection in the long term (> 3 months) We are uncertain if clinical improvement or symptom relief differs between surgery and corticosteroid injection (very low-certainty evidence). The RR for clinical improvement was 1.23 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.06; 3 studies, 187 participants). For symptoms, the standardised mean difference (SMD) was -0.60 (95% CI -1.88 to 0.69; 2 studies, 118 participants). This translates to 0.4 points better (95% CI from 1.3 better to 0.5 worse) on the BCTQ Symptom Severity Scale. Hand function or pain probably do not differ between surgery and corticosteroid injection (moderate-certainty evidence). For function, the SMD was -0.12 (95% CI -0.80 to 0.56; 2 studies, 191 participants) translating to 0.10 points better (95% CI 0.66 better to 0.46 worse) on the BCTQ Functional Status Scale with surgery. Pain (0 to 100 scale) was 8 points with corticosteroid injection and 6 points better (95% CI 10.45 better to 1.55 better; 1 study, 123 participants) with surgery. We found no data to estimate the difference in health-related quality of life (very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the risk of adverse effects and further surgery (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were reported amongst 3 of 45 participants (7%) in the surgery group and 2 of 45 participants (4%) in the corticosteroid injection group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.70; 2 studies, 90 participants). In one study, 12 of 83 participants (15%) needed surgery in the corticosteroid group, and 7 of 80 participants (9%) needed repeated surgery in the surgery group (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.46; 1 study, 163 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, the efficacy of surgery in people with CTS is unclear. It is also unclear if the results can be applied to people who are not satisfied after trying various non-surgical options. Future studies should preferably blind participants from treatment allocation and randomise people who are dissatisfied after being treated non-surgically. The decision for a patient to opt for surgery should balance the small benefits and potential risks of surgery. Patients with severe symptoms, a high preference for clinical improvement and reluctance to adhere to non-surgical options, and who do not consider potential surgical risks and morbidity a burden, may choose surgery. On the other hand, those who have tolerable symptoms, who have not tried non-surgical options and who want to avoid surgery-related morbidity can start with non-surgical options and have surgery only if necessary. We are uncertain if the risk of adverse effects differs between surgery and non-surgical treatments. The severity of adverse effects may also be different.

Anatomical considerations of US-guided carpal tunnel release in daily clinical practice

Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most frequent compression neuropathy with an incidence of one to three subjects per thousand. As specific anatomical variations might lead to unintended damage during surgical interventions, we present a review to elucidate the anatomical variability of the carpal tunnel region with important considerations for daily clinical practice: several variants of the median nerve branches in and around the transverse carpal ligament are typical and must - similarly to the variant courses of the median artery, which may be found eccentric ulnar to the median nerve - be taken into account in any interventional therapy at the carpal tunnel. Unintended interference in these structures might lead to heavy arterial bleeding and, in consequence, even underperfusion of segments of the median nerve or, if neural structures such as variant nerve branches are impaired or even cut, severe pain-syndromes with a profound impact on the quality of life. This knowledge is thus crucial for outcome- and safety-optimization of different surgical procedures at the volar aspect of the wrist and surgical therapy of the carpal tunnel syndrome e.g., US-guided carpal tunnel release, as injury might result in dysfunction and/or pain on wrist motion or direct impact in the region concerned. For most variations, anatomical and surgical descriptions vary, as official classifications are still lacking.

Comparison of ultrasound-guided pulsed radiofrequency versus steroid injection in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most widespread form of nerve entrapment neuropathy results from increase compression pressure of the median nerve at the wrist under the transverse carpal ligament.

AIMS

To compare ultrasound (US)-guided median nerve steroid injection and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) on pain intensity, functional status, and patient satisfaction in the treatment of CTS.

METHODS

A total of 90 hands of 59 patients who underwent steroid injection at the level of proximal carpal tunnel or PRF for CTS were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients were recorded. The pain severity was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and the functional status and clinical outcomes were assessed using the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) before the procedure and at Week 1, Month 1, and Month 3 after the procedure. Time to pain relief was evaluated at week 1. Patient satisfaction was evaluated at Month 3.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the NRS and BCTQ scores between the two treatment methods (p > 0.05 for both). In addition, a significant decrease in the NRS and BCTQ scores were detected at all follow-ups compared to baseline in treatment groups (p < 0.001). The mean time to pain relief was significantly shorter in the PRF group (p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was similar at Month 3 between the treatment methods (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results suggest that both US-guided steroid injection to the median nerve and PRF are effective and safe methods in the short-term in the treatment of CTS.