"Anesthesia for Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Release: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Local Versus Regional Versus General Anesthesia"

Background

Worldwide, carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral neuropathy due to compression. A minimally invasive endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) procedure is available to treat this condition. This study aims to identify and compare the different types of anesthesia in ECTR, particularly in terms of functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, and operative time.

Methods

PRISMA guideline was used to design and conduct this systematic review. MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched systematically from inception to May 2022. For the search, MeSH terms such as ECTR, general anesthesia, local anesthesia (LA), and regional anesthesia were used.

Results

As a result of reviewing the literature, 198 publications were reviewed. After implanting our criteria, 12 studies were included. We included 14589 patients who underwent ECTR. LA has a higher satisfaction rate and a shorter operative time than general anesthesia. LA had a mean operative time of 20.1 min, compared to 45 min and 51 min for regional anesthesia and general anesthesia. The number of patients with postoperative ECTR surgical complications was 2.7% (95%CI). After ECTR with LA, 95% of patients are back to their daily routine within six months.

Conclusion

All the reported methods were effective, with LA being the most commonly used. Furthermore, it showed a shorter operative time and a higher satisfaction rate than other types of anesthesia. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, we recommend future randomized controlled trials to highlight the differences in anesthesia types used in ETCR.

Level of evidence

III, risk/prognostic study.

Comparison of the effects of general and local anesthesia in lumbar interlaminar endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) with an interlaminar approach is a technique used to treat lumbar disc hernia. It has not yet been established whether general or local anesthesia (LA) is preferable for lumbar interlaminar endoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Between October, 2012 and June, 2016, 60 patients were recruited and randomly divided into 2 groups: the general anesthesia (GA) group and the LA group. The patients' basic clinical data, intraoperative patient experience, Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) score, and the postoperative patient satisfaction rate were assessed.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in operative time and length of hospital stay. There were no significant differences in postoperative ODI or VAS scores between the two groups during follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months. One patient in the GA group sustained a nerve root injury intraoperatively. Two patients in the LA group suffered adverse reactions, as did six patients in the GA group. However, 50% of the patients expressed fear about undergoing the surgery with LA, while all patients felt they could undergo the same surgery with GA.

CONCLUSIONS

General and LA are both suitable for use in lumbar interlaminar endoscopic surgery. However, GA makes a positive intraoperative surgical experience more likely for the patient.