The use of FloSeal haemostatic sealant in the management of epistaxis: a prospective clinical study and literature review

National trends in the initial diagnosis and management of carpal tunnel syndrome: results from the ELECTS (ELEctrophysiology in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome) study

INTRODUCTION

The optimal role of nerve conduction studies (NCS) in management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is unclear, with no standardised guidance. This study aimed to identify variation in practice in the initial diagnosis of patients with suspected CTS, alongside evaluating how NCS findings influence clinical decision making.

METHODS

A national multicentre collaborative survey was conducted in 2021. All centres providing surgery for CTS were invited to participate, primarily via social media. All middle-senior grade orthopaedic/plastic surgeons and advanced care practitioners that regularly manage new referrals for suspected CTS were eligible to respond. Local representatives at each participating site submitted their responses to a central team who collated and analysed the results.

RESULTS

A total of 137 healthcare professionals responded from 18 UK NHS Trusts. Of these 137, 124 (91%) reported not employing any validated clinical questionnaires in their routine practice, preferring to rely on clinical diagnosis and/or NCS if available, whereas 84 (61%) utilised NCS to aid diagnosis, with significant differences among professionals with differing experience (p < 0.01). The most common methods for determining the severity of CTS were history, examination and NCS. In symptomatic CTS with confirmatory NCS, over 50% of clinicians would choose surgical decompression as their first-line intervention. In cases of either negative NCS or atypical presentation, 37% and 51%, respectively, would consider conservative management (e.g. splintage) or steroid injection first line.

CONCLUSIONS

With growing waiting lists for NCS and surgery, national consensus guidelines should be developed to support decision making, while maximising efficient utilisation of increasingly constrained resources.

Variations in policies for accessing elective musculoskeletal procedures in the English National Health Service: A documentary analysis

OBJECTIVE

The overall aim of this study was to investigate how commissioning policies for accessing clinical procedures compare in the context of the English National Health Service. Our primary objective was to compare policy wording and categorise any variations identified. Our secondary objective was to explore how any points of variation relate to national guidance.

METHODS

This study entailed documentary analysis of commissioning policies that stipulated criteria for accessing eight elective musculoskeletal procedures. For each procedure, we retrieved policies held by regions with higher and lower rates of clinical activity relative to the national average. Policies were subjected to content and thematic analysis, using constant comparison techniques. Matrices and descriptive reports were used to compare themes across policies for each procedure and derive categories of variation that arose across two or more procedures. National guidance relating to each procedure were identified and scrutinised, to explore whether these provided context for explaining the policy variations.

RESULTS

Thirty-five policy documents held by 14 geographic regions were included in the analysis. Policies either focused on a single procedure/treatment or covered several procedures/treatments in an all-encompassing document. All policies stipulated criteria that needed to be fulfilled prior to accessing treatment, but there were inconsistences in the evidence cited. Policies varied in recurring ways, with respect to specification of non-surgical treatments and management, requirements around time spent using non-surgical approaches, diagnostic requirements, requirements around symptom severity and disease progression, and use of language, in the form of terms and phrases ('threshold modifiers') which could open up or restrict access to care. National guidance was identified for seven of the procedures, but this guidance did not specify criteria for accessing the procedures in question, making direct comparisons with regional policies difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

This, to our knowledge, is the first study to identify recurring ways in which policies for accessing treatment can vary within a single-payer system with universal coverage. The findings raise questions around whether formulation of commissioning policies should receive more central support to promote greater consistency - especially where evidence is uncertain, variable or lacking.

Dutch injection versus surgery trial in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (DISTRICTS): protocol of a randomised controlled trial comparing two treatment strategies

INTRODUCTION

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral neuropathy. The optimal treatment strategy is still unknown. The objective of the Dutch Injection versus Surgery TRIal in patients with CTS (DISTRICTS) is to investigate if initial surgery of CTS results in a better clinical outcome and is more cost-effective when compared with initial treatment with corticosteroid injection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The DISTRICTS is an ongoing multicenter, open-label randomised controlled trial. Participants with CTS are randomised to treatment with surgery or with a corticosteroid injection. If needed, any additional treatments after this first treatment are allowed and these are not dictated by the study protocol. The primary outcome is the difference between the groups in the proportion of participants recovered at 18 months. Recovery is defined as having no or mild symptoms as measured with the 6-item carpal tunnel symptoms scale. Secondary outcome measurements are among others: time to recovery, hand function, patient satisfaction, quality of life, additional treatments, adverse events, and use of care and health-related costs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (study number 2017-171). Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN Registry: 13164336.

Variation in the clinical commissioning of surgery for three common hand conditions in England

The surgical referral policies for patients with trigger finger, ganglion removal and Dupuytren's disease were collected for all Clinical Commissioning Groups in England. The aim was to assess whether there was variation in the policies across England, resulting in inequality in patients' access to surgery. Data were collected between October 2018 and January 2019 and compared with national guidelines. Analysis of the results showed that for all three conditions, surgical commissioning policies varied depending on the locality. The results also show that despite the existence of national guidelines, they are not implemented. This has the potential to lead to variation in surgical referral and access to services for patients in different localities in England.Level of evidence: III.

Carpal tunnel decompression in patients with normal nerve conduction studies

Some patients present with typical clinical features of carpal tunnel syndrome despite normal nerve conduction studies. This study compared the preoperative and 1-year postoperative QuickDASH scores in patients with normal and abnormal nerve conduction studies, who underwent carpal tunnel decompression. Of the 637 patients included in the study, 19 had clinical features of carpal tunnel syndrome but normal nerve conduction studies, and underwent decompression after failure of conservative management. Preoperative QuickDASH scores were comparable in both groups (58 vs 54.8). However, there were significant differences between the normal and abnormal nerve conduction study groups in the QuickDASH at 1 year (34.9 vs 21.5) and change in QuickDASH postoperatively (23.1 vs 33.4). Patients with normal nerve conduction studies had comparable preoperative disability scores compared with those with abnormal studies. Although they had a significant improvement in QuickDASH at 1 year, this was significantly less than those with abnormal nerve conduction studies. Level of evidence: III.

National variation between clinical commissioning groups in referral criteria for primary total hip replacement surgery

The referral criteria used by the UK clinical commissioning groups for primary total hip replacement surgery appear inconsistent; the criteria rarely follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria. With established guidelines available, it is unclear why the clinical commissioning groups have referral criteia with less evidence base, without obviously addressing particular issues in their locality.

Injection versus Decompression for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-Pilot trial (INDICATE-P)-protocol for a randomised feasibility study

Background

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the commonest peripheral nerve disorder in the UK, with over 52,996 carpal tunnel decompressions performed in 2011. By 2030, this figure is estimated to double. Whilst evidence supports conservative measures for mild symptoms, and early surgery for severe symptoms, controversy remains over the most appropriate management for patients that present with moderate disease, with regard to early surgery or late surgery following steroid injection. Injection versus Decompression for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-Pilot trial (INDICATE-P) is a feasibility study for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (INDICATE) to determine whether patients over the age of 18 with moderate CTS should undergo early surgical decompression of the median nerve or a single steroid injection (followed by later surgery if required).

Methods/design

INDICATE-P is a feasibility study for an open (non-blinded) randomised controlled pilot trial. Eligible participants will be adults with a clinical diagnosis of moderate CTS. This is defined as symptoms disturbing sleep or restricting activities of daily living or work, despite a 2-week trial of night splints. Participants will be randomised to one of two possible interventions: surgical decompression or a single steroid injection (followed by surgery later if required). Clinical outcome measures will be captured by postal questionnaire at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. In order to improve the study design for the main INDICATE trial, feasibility data will also be collected to identify difficulties in recruitment and retention, to gain patient feedback on questionnaires and to confirm the suitability of the proposed outcome measures.

Discussion

The INDICATE-P feasibility study will contribute to the design and execution of the INDICATE trial, which will seek to assess the safety and effectiveness of two approaches to treatment for patients over 18 years of age with moderate CTS: early carpal tunnel decompression or a single steroid injection (followed by later surgery).