Surgical techniques and return to work following carpal tunnel release: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anatomic Variation of the Hamate Hook as a Potential Risk in Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of anomalies in patients who underwent endoscopic carpal tunnel release and their relationship with clinical outcomes.

Methods

This retrospective study included 65 hands of 57 patients (8 men and 49 women; mean age, 64.9 years) who underwent endoscopic carpal tunnel release for carpal tunnel syndrome at our hospital between March 2016 and April 2022. The patients were diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome based on clinical observations and electrophysiological studies. On T2-weighted magnetic resonance axial images, the height of the hook of the hamate was measured from the bottom to the tip of the hook, and the total height of the hamate was measured from the dorsal surface of the hamate to the tip of the hook. A hook-to-height ratio of less than 0.34 was defined as hypoplastic, and its incidence was investigated. In addition, electrodiagnostic testing of sensory and motor nerve conduction of the median nerve and patient-reported outcome measurements, including Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, Boston carpal tunnel questionnaire, and visual analog scale score, were investigated at 6 months after surgery. Adverse events were collected from patient records.

Results

The mean hook-to-height ratio was 0.40. Hypoplasia with a ratio ≤0.34 was observed in seven hands (10.8%), and adverse events were observed only in the two cases that had a hypoplastic hook of the hamate (3.07%). The patient-reported outcome measurements and the result of electrodiagnostic testing at 6 months after surgery did not correlate with the height of the hook of the hamate.

Conclusions

The incidence of a hypoplastic hook of the hamate is common in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, and preoperative evaluation of the morphology of the hooks and indications for endoscopic carpal tunnel release in cases of hypoplastic hooks may help predict adverse events.

Type of study/level of evidence

Therapeutic Ⅳ.

Optimizing Recovery After Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Release Surgery: The Role of Counseling in Pain Management and Perioperative Functional Enhancement

Background

Preoperative patient education is pivotal in improving patient outcomes during the perioperative phase, involving a thorough explanation of what patients can expect. This enhances adherence and reduces perioperative anxiety. In orthopedics, carpal tunnel syndrome, a common and painful hand condition, is effectively managed through surgical release under local anesthesia. Inadequate counseling before such procedures may intensify intraoperative anxiety and increase pain responses. Thus, this research aims to investigate the effects of comprehensive preoperative counseling on various parameters in carpal tunnel release surgery.

Methods

A case-control study design was adopted for this study. A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent carpal tunnel release surgery was performed. These patients were categorized into two distinct groups: one group received comprehensive counseling during their clinic visits, while the other group reported receiving less effective counseling. Evaluation encompassed patient-related factors, disease-related aspects, and perioperative variables for both groups.

Results

The study comprised 681 participants, with 526 (77.2%) being females, 421 (61.8%) undergoing surgery on the right side, and 519 (76.2%) employed in non-manual occupations. Moreover, 559 (82.1%) were non-smokers, while approximately two-thirds of the cohort had both diabetes and hypertension. The average age of participants was 52 years, and they reported a mean functional disability score of 7.2 out of 10. The comprehensive preoperative counseling group consisted of 333 patients, while the other group included 348 patients. The analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups, including reduced intra-procedural anxiety (p = 0.043), decreased intraoperative pain (p = 0.005), lower rates of wound complications (p = 0.022), and improved self-reported pain relief (p = 0.3).

Conclusion

Our study emphasizes the crucial role of preoperative counseling in improving patient experiences during perioperative care, leading to reduced anxiety, milder pain responses, fewer complications, decreased reliance on postoperative pain medication, and increased self-reported pain relief.

Level of Evidence

Level III, Case-control retrospective study.

Update on surgical procedures for carpal tunnel syndrome: What is the current evidence and practice? What are the future research directions?

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a multifactorial compression neuropathy. It is reported to be very common and rising globally. CTS’s treatment varies from conservative measures to surgical treatments. Surgery has shown to be an effective method for more severe cases. However few unclear aspects and room for further research and improvements still remains. We performed a narrative literature review on the most up to date progress and innovation in terms of surgical treatments for CTS. The simple algorithm of leaving the choice of the surgical method to surgeons’ preference and experience (together with consideration of patients’ related factors) seem to be the best available option, which is supported by the most recent metanalysis and systematic reviews. We suggest that surgeons (unless in presence of precise indications towards endoscopic release) should tend to perform a minimally invasive open approach release, favoring the advantage of a better neurovascular structures visualization (and a consequent higher chance to perform a complete release with long term relief of symptoms) instead of favoring an early reduction (in the first postoperative days) of immobilization and pain. Research towards a universally accepted standardization should be aimed for by the researchers, who have failed to date to sufficiently limit bias and limitations.

Surgeons' Recommendations for Return to Work After Carpal Tunnel Release

BACKGROUND

Recommendations and expectations regarding return to work (RTW) after carpal tunnel release (CTR) are often inconsistent. The study aim was to describe preferences of American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) members for perioperative management of patients following CTR, emphasizing surgeon preference regarding RTW.

METHODS

A survey was sent to all ASSH members with active e-mail addresses. The primary outcome was the recommended time frame for patients to RTW full duty. Secondarily, associated factors with RTW were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 4109 e-mail surveys were sent with 632 responses (15%). The highest proportion of respondents perform >100 CTRs per year (43.2%), have been practicing for >20 years (38.1%), and perform CTR using standard, open approach at outpatient surgery centers. The primary surgeon made recommendations about RTW in 99.5% of cases. For desk-based duties, the median recommended RTW time was 3 days; for duties requiring repetitive, light lifting of <10 lbs, the median recommended RTW time was 10 days; and for heavy manual duties, the median recommended RTW time was 30 days after CTR, according to the respondents. The 3 factors considered most influential for RTW were type of work, employer support, and financial considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates consistency among ASSH members in the perioperative management of CTR patients. The most important factors affecting RTW were type of work performed, employer support, and financial considerations. This study provides a meaningful foundation to manage expectations and guide patients, medical providers, and employers on the amount of time likely to be missed from work after CTR.

Quality analysis of prior systematic reviews of carpal tunnel syndrome: an overview of the literature

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common condition greatly affects patients' quality of life and ability to work. Systematic reviews provide useful information for treatment and health decisions.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the methodological quality of previously published systematic reviews on the treatment of CTS.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Overview of systematic reviews conducted at the Brazilian public higher education institution, São Paulo, Brazil.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library database for systematic reviews investigating the treatment of CTS in adults. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) were applied by two independent examiners.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies were included. Considering the stratification within the AMSTAR measurement tool, we found that more than 76% of the analyzed studies were "low" or "very low". PRISMA scores were higher when meta-analysis was present (15.61 versus 10.40; P = 0.008), while AMSTAR scores were higher when studies performed meta-analysis (8.43 versus 5.59; P = 0.009) or when they included randomized controlled trials (7.95 versus 6.06; P = 0.043). The intra-observer correlation demonstrated perfect agreement (> 0.8), a Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.829, and an ICC of0.857. The inter-observer correlation indicated that AMSTAR was more reliable than PRISMA.

CONCLUSION

Overall, systematic reviews of the treatment of CTS are of poor quality. Reviews with better-quality conducted meta-analysis and included randomized controlled trials. AMSTAR is a better tool than PRISMA because it has a better performance and should be recommended in future studies.

REGISTRATION NUMBER IN PROSPERO

CRD42020172328 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172328).

A Systematic Review of Randomised Control Trials Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Open and Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release

INTRODUCTION

Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most prevalent form of nerve compression syndrome of the upper limb; therefore, it is of clinical significance to critique treatment methods. There is an ongoing debate amongst clinicians as to which surgical method-open or endoscopic carpal tunnel release-provides better overall symptom relief and faster recovery time. This systematic review aimed to investigate the evidence from randomised control trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release surgery.

METHODS

Database searches were carried out to identify literature. An inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied to only include randomised control trials which compared open and endoscopic surgery. Publications were then selected according to PRISMA guidelines, risk of bias was assessed and patient outcome was assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were selected for this systematic review. It was found that for improvement to grip strength and symptom severity, the endoscopic group had more significant improvement in the short term, resulting in a quicker return to work time compared to the open group. The complication rate for both intervention groups was low despite more severe and irreversible complications such as prolonged pain and wound infections being observed in the open group; however, the endoscopic group reported a higher risk of needing repeat surgery.

CONCLUSION

The quicker recovery time, improved cosmetic result and less severe complications observed with the endoscopic technique suggest that it should be used more often. However, this review found no convincing evidence of a significantly superior technique in the long term.

The Influence of Illness Perception and Mental Health on Return to Work After Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery

PURPOSE

Although multiple factors influencing return to work after a carpal tunnel release (CTR) have been identified, little is known about the influence of psychological patient factors on return to work. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the psychological factors that play a role in the return to work after a CTR surgery.

METHODS

Patients who planned to undergo a CTR were asked to fill out the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and the Patient Health Questionnaire before surgery to measure their illness perceptions and mental health status, respectively. Return to work was defined as the time until returning to work for 50% of normal hours and was measured using a questionnaire at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. To identify associations between nonpsychological and psychological patient factors and the return to work after CTR surgery, a Cox proportional hazards model was constructed.

RESULTS

In total, 615 patients were included in our study. Six months after surgery, 91% of the patients returned to work. For the psychological patient factors, we found that increases of 1 point on the items of worrying about carpal tunnel syndrome and having faith preoperatively in a beneficial effect of the CTR surgery were associated with hazard ratios of 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.96) and 1.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.19), respectively, for returning to work in the first 6 months after surgery. An increase of 1 point on the depression subscale of the Patient Health Questionnaire was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99) for returning to work in the first 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that multiple psychological patient factors are associated with return to work after a CTR surgery. Addressing these psychological factors before surgery might be a low-cost intervention to improve return to work after the CTR surgery.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Applying Evidence to Inform Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Care

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is one of the most common problems treated by hand surgeons. As our understanding of the condition has improved and focus on quality and evidence-based care has evolved, management of CTS has shifted as well. Although for many patients the diagnosis and treatment plan are relatively straightforward, understanding how to decide what diagnostics are appropriate, how to avoid complications especially in high-risk patients, and even which surgical option to offer remains a challenge. As CTS research efforts broaden and available evidence grows, understanding the different research findings in order to implement the evidence into practice is critical for all surgeons. In this article, we approach commonly encountered challenges in CTS management and take a methodological viewpoint to guide evidence-based practice.

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.

Experts' perspective on a definition for delayed return-to-work after surgery for nontraumatic upper extremity disorders: Recommendations and implications

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive study.

INTRODUCTION

A delayed return to work (RTW) is often associated with poorer outcomes after a workplace injury but is ill defined.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To define delayed RTW after surgery for nontraumatic upper extremity conditions.

METHODS

Experts were consulted to define delayed RTW and whether a universal time point can determine the transition from early to delayed RTW.

RESULTS

Forty-two experts defined a delayed RTW as either a worker not returning to preinjury (or similar) work within the expected time frame (45%); not returning to any type of work (36%); or recovering slower than expected (12%). Two-thirds of experts believed that universal time points to delineate delayed RTW should be avoided.

DISCUSSION

Multiple factors complicate a uniform definition of delayed RTW.

CONCLUSION

Defining delayed RTW should be individualized with due consideration to the type of work. Time-based cutoffs for outcome measurement may not be appropriate with continuous measures more appropriate in research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Decision analysis V.

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Manual Physical Therapy Versus Surgery for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Evidence From a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) results in substantial societal costs and can be treated either by nonsurgical or surgical approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate differences in cost-effectiveness of manual physical therapy versus surgery in women with CTS.

METHODS

In this randomized clinical trial, 120 women with a clinical and an electromyographic diagnosis of CTS were randomized through concealed allocation to either manual physical therapy or surgery. Interventions consisted of 3 sessions of manual physical therapy, including desensitization maneuvers of the central nervous system, or decompression/release of the carpal tunnel. Societal costs and health-related quality of life (estimated by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions [EQ-5D] scale) over 1 year were used to generate incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year ratios for each treatment.

RESULTS

The analysis was possible for 118 patients (98%). Incremental quality-adjusted life years showed greater cost-effectiveness in favor of manual physical therapy (difference, 0.135; 95% confidence interval: 0.134, 0.136). Manual therapy was significantly less costly than surgery (mean difference in cost per patient, €2576; P<.001). Patients in the surgical group received a greater number of other treatments and made more visits to medical doctors than those receiving manual physical therapy (P = .02). Absenteeism from paid work was significantly higher in the surgery group (P<.001). The major contributors to societal costs were the treatment protocol (surgery versus manual therapy mean difference, €106 980) and absenteeism from paid work (surgery versus manual physical therapy mean difference, €42 224).

CONCLUSION

Manual physical therapy, including desensitization maneuvers of the central nervous system, has been found to be equally effective but less costly (ie, more cost-effective) than surgery for women with CTS. From a cost-benefit perspective, the proposed CTS manual physical therapy intervention can be considered.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and decision analyses, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(2):55-63. Epub 30 Nov 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8483.

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.

The Effect of Psychological Factors on the Outcomes of Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review

Background: Several studies report that psychological factors are associated with outcomes of carpal tunnel release. However, interpretation of the association is difficult as there are diverse outcome parameters and patient expectations are different. We performed a systematic review to assess the relationships between psychological factors and the various outcome parameters.

Methods: We identified 611 papers and selected 8 papers that fit the inclusion criteria. Psychological factors assessed were anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, coping, and mental health status. Outcomes of interest included satisfaction and measures of perceived level of function, pain, and physical measures of recovery.

Results: For satisfaction and perceived level of function as the outcome, three studies reported a significant association, one study found an association approaching a value of significance, and one study reported no association. For pain as the outcome, two studies reported a significant association. For physical measures, one study reported no association.

Conclusions: This systematic review found that depression correlates with postoperative pain, but that the association is less clear between psychological factors and outcomes such as satisfaction, perceived level of symptom and function, and physical measures of recovery. As pain may not be a primary symptom or outcome of CTS, we consider that the current literature does not strongly support the association between psychological factors and outcomes of CTR. This review could be of benefit during preoperative counseling in patients with psychological disturbances.

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.

Rehabilitation following carpal tunnel release

BACKGROUND

Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) surgery. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear. This is the first update of a review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions following CTS surgery compared with no treatment, placebo, or another intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

On 29 September 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, AMED, LILACS, and PsycINFO. We also searched PEDro (3 December 2015) and clinical trials registers (3 December 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared any postoperative rehabilitation intervention with either no intervention, placebo, or another postoperative rehabilitation intervention in individuals who had undergone CTS surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach according to standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review we included 22 trials with a total of 1521 participants. Two of the trials were newly identified at this update. We studied different rehabilitation treatments including immobilisation using a wrist orthosis, dressings, exercise, controlled cold therapy, ice therapy, multi-modal hand rehabilitation, laser therapy, electrical modalities, scar desensitisation, and arnica. Three trials compared a rehabilitation treatment to a placebo, four compared rehabilitation to a no treatment control, three compared rehabilitation to standard care, and 15 compared various rehabilitation treatments to one another.Overall, the included studies were very low in quality. Thirteen trials explicitly reported random sequence generation; of these, five adequately concealed the allocation sequence. Four trials achieved blinding of both participants and outcome assessors. Five were at high risk of bias from incompleteness of outcome data at one or more time intervals, and eight had high risk of selective reporting bias.These trials were heterogeneous in terms of treatments provided, duration of interventions, the nature and timing of outcomes measured, and setting. Therefore, we were not able to pool results across trials.Four trials reported our primary outcome, change in self reported functional ability at three months or more. Of these, three trials provided sufficient outcome data for inclusion in this review. One small high-quality trial studied a desensitisation programme compared with standard treatment and revealed no statistically significant functional benefit based on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) (mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to 0.33). One low-quality trial assessed participants six months post surgery using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and found no significant difference between a no formal therapy group and a group given a two-week course of multi-modal therapy commenced at five to seven days post surgery (MD 1.00, 95% CI -4.44 to 6.44). One very low-quality quasi-randomised trial found no statistically significant difference in function on the BCTQ at three months post surgery with early immobilisation (plaster wrist orthosis worn until suture removal) compared with a splint and late mobilisation (MD 0.39, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.23).Differences between treatments for secondary outcome measures (change in self reported functional ability measured at less than three months; change in CTS symptoms; change in CTS-related impairment measures; presence of iatrogenic symptoms from surgery; return to work or occupation; and change in neurophysiological parameters) were generally small and not statistically significant. Few studies reported adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited and, in general, low quality evidence for the benefit of the reviewed interventions. People who have undergone CTS surgery should be informed about the limited evidence of effectiveness of postoperative rehabilitation interventions. Until researchers provide results of more high-quality trials that assess the effectiveness and safety of various rehabilitation treatments, the decision to provide rehabilitation following CTS surgery should be based on the clinician's expertise, the patient's preferences and the context of the rehabilitation environment. It is important for researchers to identify patients who respond to a particular treatment and those who do not, and to undertake high-quality studies that evaluate the severity of iatrogenic symptoms from surgery, measure function and return-to-work rates, and control for confounding variables.

Endoscopic and Open Release Similarly Safe for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The Endoscopic Release of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (ECTR) is a minimal invasive approach for the treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. There is scepticism regarding the safety of this technique, based on the assumption that this is a rather "blind" procedure and on the high number of severe complications that have been reported in the literature.

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether there is evidence supporting a higher risk after ECTR in comparison to the conventional open release.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2013), the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (November 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, issue 11 in The Cochrane Library). We hand-searched reference lists of included studies. We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (e.g. study using alternation, date of birth, or case record number) that compare any ECTR with any OCTR technique. Safety was assessed by the incidence of major, minor and total number of complications, recurrences, and re-operations.The total time needed before return to work or to return to daily activities was also assessed. We synthesized data using a random-effects meta-analysis in STATA. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for rare events using binomial likelihood. We judged the conclusiveness of meta-analysis calculating the conditional power of meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

ECTR is associated with less time off work or with daily activities. The assessment of major complications, reoperations and recurrence of symptoms does not favor either of the interventions. There is an uncertain advantage of ECTR with respect to total minor complications (more transient paresthesia but fewer skin-related complications). Future studies are unlikely to alter these findings because of the rarity of the outcome. The effect of a learning curve might be responsible for reduced recurrences and reoperations with ECTR in studies that are more recent, although formal statistical analysis failed to provide evidence for such an association.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Endoscopic and Open Release Similarly Safe for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The Endoscopic Release of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (ECTR) is a minimal invasive approach for the treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. There is scepticism regarding the safety of this technique, based on the assumption that this is a rather “blind” procedure and on the high number of severe complications that have been reported in the literature.

Purpose

To evaluate whether there is evidence supporting a higher risk after ECTR in comparison to the conventional open release.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2013), the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (November 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, issue 11 in The Cochrane Library). We hand-searched reference lists of included studies. We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (e.g. study using alternation, date of birth, or case record number) that compare any ECTR with any OCTR technique. Safety was assessed by the incidence of major, minor and total number of complications, recurrences, and re-operations.The total time needed before return to work or to return to daily activities was also assessed. We synthesized data using a random-effects meta-analysis in STATA. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for rare events using binomial likelihood. We judged the conclusiveness of meta-analysis calculating the conditional power of meta-analysis.

Conclusions

ECTR is associated with less time off work or with daily activities. The assessment of major complications, reoperations and recurrence of symptoms does not favor either of the interventions. There is an uncertain advantage of ECTR with respect to total minor complications (more transient paresthesia but fewer skin-related complications). Future studies are unlikely to alter these findings because of the rarity of the outcome. The effect of a learning curve might be responsible for reduced recurrences and reoperations with ECTR in studies that are more recent, although formal statistical analysis failed to provide evidence for such an association. Level of evidence: I.

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

BACKGROUND

Most randomized trials have shown similar results with endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR); however, there are studies suggesting less postoperative pain, faster improvement in grip and pinch strength, and earlier return to work with the endoscopic technique. The goal of this study was to prospectively examine subjective and functional outcomes, satisfaction, and complications after both ECTR and OCTR in the opposite hands of the same patient, serving as their own control.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized study in which patients underwent surgery for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The first carpal tunnel release was performed on the most symptomatic hand-determined by the patient. Operative approach was randomly assigned and, approximately 1 month later, the alternative technique was performed on the contralateral side. Demographic data were obtained, and functional outcomes were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively, including pain score, 2-point discrimination, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing, thenar strength, and overall grip strength. The carpal tunnel syndrome-functional status score and carpal tunnel syndrome-symptom severity score were recorded before surgery and at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively. Overall satisfaction with each technique was recorded at the conclusion of the study.

RESULTS

Currently, 25 subjects have completed final visit testing. There were no differences in pain score, 2-point discrimination, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing, thenar strength, or overall grip strength at any of the postoperative time points. Carpal tunnel syndrome-symptom severity score and carpal tunnel syndrome-functional status score were not significantly different between groups at any of the evaluations. Overall satisfaction, where patients recorded a number from 0 to 100, was significantly greater in the ECTR group (95.95 vs 91.60, P = 0.04). There were no complications with either technique.

DISCUSSION

This interim analysis, using the same patient as an internal control, suggests that both OCTR and ECTR are well tolerated with no differences in functional outcomes, symptom severity and functional status questionnaires, or complications. Although there were no differences between groups using our study metrics, patients still preferred the ECTR, demonstrated by significantly higher overall satisfaction scores at the conclusion of the study.

Carpal tunnel syndrome and work

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common peripheral nerve entrapment syndrome, and it frequently presents in working-aged adults. Its mild form causes 'nuisance' symptoms including dysaesthesia and nocturnal waking. At its most severe, CTS can significantly impair motor function and weaken pinch grip. This review discusses the anatomy of the carpal tunnel and the clinical presentation of the syndrome as well as the classification and diagnosis of the condition. CTS has a profile of well-established risk factors including individual factors and predisposing co-morbidities, which are briefly discussed. There is a growing body of evidence for an association between CTS and various occupational factors, which is also explored. Management of CTS, conservative and surgical, is described. Finally, the issue of safe return to work post carpal tunnel release surgery and the lack of evidence-based guidelines are discussed.

Sickness absence from work among persons with new physician-diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome: a population-based matched-cohort study

Background

Carpal tunnel syndrome is common among employed persons. Data on sickness absence from work in relation to carpal tunnel syndrome have been usually based on self-report and derived from clinical or occupational populations. We aimed to determine sickness absence among persons with physician-diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome as compared to the general population.

Methods

In Skåne region in Sweden we identified all subjects, aged 17–57 years, with new physician-made diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome during 5 years (2004–2008). For each subject we randomly sampled, from the general population, 4 matched reference subjects without carpal tunnel syndrome; the two cohorts comprised 5456 and 21,667 subjects, respectively (73% women; mean age 43 years). We retrieved social insurance register data on all sickness absence periods longer than 2 weeks from 12 months before to 24 months after diagnosis. Of those with carpal tunnel syndrome 2111 women (53%) and 710 men (48%) underwent surgery within 24 months of diagnosis. We compared all-cause sickness absence and analyzed sickness absence in conjunction with diagnosis and surgery.

Results

Mean number of all-cause sickness absence days per each 30-day period from 12 months before to 24 months after diagnosis was significantly higher in the carpal tunnel syndrome than in the reference cohort. A new sickness absence period longer than 2 weeks in conjunction with diagnosis was recorded in 12% of the women (n = 492) and 11% of the men (n = 170) and with surgery in 53% (n = 1121) and 58% (n = 408) of the surgically treated, respectively; median duration in conjunction with surgery was 35 days (IQR 27–45) for women and 41 days (IQR 28–50) for men.

Conclusions

Persons with physician-diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome have substantially more sickness absence from work than age and sex-matched persons from the general population from1 year before to 2 years after diagnosis. Gender differences were small.

Psychological approach of occupational health service to sick leave due to mental problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The effects of interventions by occupational health services on sick leave prompted by psychiatric disorders were examined with respect to intervention method and the number of sick leave days.

METHODS

The intervention methods used by occupational health services were systematically reviewed by searching three databases and manual searching. A meta-analysis of the number of sick leave days comparing the intervention group [intervention + care as usual (CAU)] and control group (CAU alone) was performed. In addition, subanalyses were conducted for the duration until sick-listed workers' return to work after sick leave (Subgroup 1) and the number of non-sick-listed workers' total sick leave days (Subgroup 2).

RESULTS

Ten studies were extracted and integrated, and the subjects were subsequently sorted into the intervention group (n = 434, 322, and 756 in subgroup 1, subgroup 2, and total, respectively) and control group (n = 413, 385, and 798 in subgroup 1, subgroup 2, and total, respectively). All studies employed an intervention method of problem-solving treatment or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups in subgroup 1 or 2. However, the combined intervention group had significantly fewer total sick leave days than the combined control group (mean difference -6.64 days, 95% CI -12.68 to -0.59, I(2) = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The combined study of sick-listed and non-sick-listed workers indicates occupational health services implement problem-solving treatment or CBT interventions, which can shorten total sick leave duration.

Endoscopic release for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common compressive neuropathy of the upper extremity. It is caused by increased pressure on the median nerve between the transverse carpal ligament and the carpal bones. Surgical treatment consists of the release of the nerve by cutting the transverse carpal ligament. This can be done either with an open approach or endoscopically.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the endoscopic techniques of carpal tunnel release compared to any other surgical intervention for the treatment of CTS. More specifically, to evaluate the relative impact of endoscopic techniques in relieving symptoms, producing functional recovery (return to work and return to daily activities) and reducing complication rates.

SEARCH METHODS

This review fully incorporates the results of searches conducted up to 5 November 2012, when we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. There were no language restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted trial authors. We also searched trial registers for ongoing trials. We performed a preliminary screen of searches to November 2013 to identify any additional recent publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) with any other surgical intervention for the treatment of CTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies (2586 hands) were included. Twenty-three studies compared ECTR to standard open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), five studies compared ECTR with OCTR using a modified incision, and two studies used a three-arm design to compare ECTR, standard OCTR and modified OCTR.At short-term follow-up (three months or less), only one study provided data for overall improvement. We found no differences on the Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) (scale zero to five) (five studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.13, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.21) or on the Functional Status Scale (FSS) (scale zero to five) (five studies, SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.14) within three months postoperatively between ECTR and OCTR. Pain scores favoured ECTR over conventional OCTR (two studies, SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.18). No difference was found between ECTR and OCTR (standard and modified) when pain was assessed on non-continuous dichotomous scales (five studies, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.45). Also, no difference was found in numbness (five studies, RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.71). Grip strength was increased after ECTR when compared with OCTR (six studies, SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of 4 kg (95% CI 1 to 6.9 kg) when compared with OCTR, which is probably not clinically significant.In the long term (more than three months postoperatively) there was no significant difference in overall improvement between ECTR and OCTR (four studies, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14). SSS and FSS were also similar in both treatment groups (two studies, MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.22 for SSS and MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.16 for FSS). ECTR and OCTR did not differ in the long term in pain (six studies, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.38) or in numbness (four studies, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.35). Results from grip strength testing favoured ECTR (two studies, SMD 1.13, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.71), corresponding to an MD of 11 kg (95% CI 6.2 to 18.81). Participants treated with ECTR returned to work or daily activities eight days earlier than participants treated with OCTR (four studies, MD -8.10 days, 95% CI -14.28 to -1.92 days).Both treatments were equally safe with only a few reports of major complications (mainly with complex regional pain syndrome) (15 studies, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.64).ECTR resulted in a significantly lower rate of minor complications (18 studies, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.81), corresponding to a 45% relative drop in the probability of complications (95% CI 62% to 19%). ECTR more frequently resulted in transient nerve problems (ie, neurapraxia, numbness, and paraesthesiae), while OCTR had more wound problems (ie, infection, hypertrophic scarring, and scar tenderness). ECTR was safer than OCTR when the total number of complications were assessed (20 studies, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 90) representing a relative drop in the probability by 40% (95% CI 60% to 10%).Rates of recurrence of symptoms and the need for repeated surgery were comparable between ECTR and OCTR groups.The overall risk of bias in studies that contribute data to these results is rather high; fewer than 25% of the included studies had adequate allocation concealment, generation of allocation sequence or blinding of the outcome assessor.The quality of evidence in this review may be considered as generally low. Five of the studies were presented only as abstracts, with insufficient information to judge their risk of bias. In selection bias, attrition bias or other bias (baseline differences and financial conflict of interest) we could not reach a safe judgement regarding a high or low risk of bias. Blinding of participants is impossible due to the nature of interventions.We identified three further potentially eligible studies upon updating searches just prior to publication. These compared ECTR with OCTR (two studies) or mini-open carpal tunnel release (one study) and will be fully assessed when we update the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, with support from low quality evidence only, OCTR and ECTR for carpal tunnel release are about as effective as each other in relieving symptoms and improving functional status, although there may be a functionally significant benefit of ECTR over OCTR in improvement in grip strength. ECTR appears to be associated with fewer minor complications compared to OCTR, but we found no difference in the rates of major complications. Return to work is faster after endoscopic release, by eight days on average. Conclusions from this review are limited by the high risk of bias, statistical imprecision and inconsistency in the included studies.

Rehabilitation following carpal tunnel release

BACKGROUND

Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) surgery. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of rehabilitation following CTS surgery compared with no treatment, placebo, or another intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

On 3 April 2012, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (3 April 2012), CENTRAL (2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2012), CINAHL Plus (January 1937 to March 2012), AMED (January 1985 to April 2012), LILACS (January 1982 to March 2012), PsycINFO (January 1806 to March 2012), PEDRO (29 January 2013) and clinical trials registers (29 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared any postoperative rehabilitation intervention with either no intervention, placebo or another postoperative rehabilitation intervention in individuals who had undergone CTS surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review we included 20 trials with a total of 1445 participants. We studied different rehabilitation treatments including: immobilisation using a wrist orthosis, dressings, exercise, controlled cold therapy, ice therapy, multimodal hand rehabilitation, laser therapy, electrical modalities, scar desensitisation, and arnica. Three trials compared a rehabilitation treatment to a placebo comparison; three trials compared rehabilitation to a no treatment control; three trials compared rehabilitation to standard care; and 14 trials compared various rehabilitation treatments to one another.Overall, the included studies were very low in quality. Eleven trials explicitly reported random sequence generation and, of these, three adequately concealed the allocation sequence. Four trials achieved blinding of both participants and outcome assessors. Five studies were at high risk of bias from incompleteness of outcome data at one or more time intervals. Eight trials had a high risk of selective reporting bias.The trials were heterogenous in terms of the treatments provided, the duration of interventions, the nature and timing of outcomes measured and setting. Therefore, we were not able to pool results across trials.Four trials reported our primary outcome, change in self reported functional ability at three months or longer. Of these, three trials provided sufficient outcome data for inclusion in this review. One small high quality trial studied a desensitisation program compared to standard treatment and revealed no statistically significant functional benefit based on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) (MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.33). One moderate quality trial assessed participants six months post surgery using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and found no significant difference between a no formal therapy group and a two-week course of multimodal therapy commenced at five to seven days post surgery (MD 1.00; 95% CI -4.44 to 6.44). One very low quality quasi-randomised trial found no statistically significant difference in function on the BCTQ at three months post surgery with early immobilisation (plaster wrist orthosis worn until suture removal) compared with a splint and late mobilisation (MD 0.39; 95% CI -0.45 to 1.23).The differences between the treatments for the secondary outcome measures (change in self reported functional ability measured at less than three months; change in CTS symptoms; change in CTS-related impairment measures; presence of iatrogenic symptoms from surgery; return to work or occupation; and change in neurophysiological parameters) were generally small and not statistically significant. Few studies reported adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited and, in general, low quality evidence for the benefit of the reviewed interventions. People who have had CTS surgery should be informed about the limited evidence of the effectiveness of postoperative rehabilitation interventions. Until the results of more high quality trials that assess the effectiveness and safety of various rehabilitation treatments have been reported, the decision to provide rehabilitation following CTS surgery should be based on the clinician's expertise, the patient's preferences and the context of the rehabilitation environment. It is important for researchers to identify patients who respond to a certain treatment and those who do not, and to undertake high quality studies that evaluate the severity of iatrogenic symptoms from the surgery, measure function and return-to-work rates, and control for confounding variables.

Factors affecting return to work after carpal tunnel syndrome surgery in a large French cohort

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate occupational outcomes after surgical release of the median nerve in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

DESIGN

Retrospective study 12 to 24 months after surgery.

SETTING

Hand centers (N=3) in 2 different areas.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients who had undergone surgical release of the median nerve in 2002 to 2003.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Duration of sick leave after surgery and associated factors were analyzed by using bivariate (log rank) and multivariate analyses of survival (Cox model).

RESULTS

Questionnaires mailed in 2004 regarding medical condition (history and surgery), employment (occupational category codes in 1 digit), and compensation were returned (N=1248; 62%), with 253 men and 682 women stating they were employed at the time of surgery (N=935). Most were working at the time of the study (n=851; 91.0%). Median duration of sick leave before returning to work was 60 days. The main factors associated with adverse occupational outcome (long duration of sick leave) were simultaneous intervention for another upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorder, belief (by the patient) in an occupational cause, and "blue-collar worker" occupational category (the strongest determinant).

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the multifactorial nature of the occupational outcome of CTS after surgery, including occupational category. The probability of return to work for each risk factor provides a fair description of prognosis for physicians and patients.