A Randomized Controlled Trial of Knifelight and Open Carpal Tunnel Release

Effectiveness and safety of surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome via a mini-transverse incision and a bush hook versus a mid-palmar small longitudinal incision

Background

Minimally invasive surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome has been consistently the mainstay of treatment. In this study, we developed a novel bush hook via a mini-transverse incision at proximal wrist crease to surgically treat carpal tunnel syndrome and our aim was to compare the results with those of mid-palmar small longitudinal incision in carpal tunnel release.

Methods

This is a retrospective study on patients who received a mini-transverse incision and a novel bush hook or a mid-palmar small longitudinal incision for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The decision to receive either technique was made mainly based on patients' choice. The clinical results were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, 3 and 6 months postoperatively and compared.

Results

In total, 58 patients in mini-transverse incision group and 74 in mid-palmar longitudinal incision group were include. The follow-up period was 6.8 ± 1.6 months. The mini-transverse incision group had a significantly smaller incision (4.3 ± 0.4 mm vs. 26.2 ± 1.6 mm), shorter surgical time (7.8 ± 2.6 min vs. 19.7 ± 2.8 min), but not for hospital stay (3.2 ± 1.9 vs. 3.6 ± 2.2 days). Both groups showed significant improvement from baseline level at any time points postoperatively (all P < 0.001). At 1 month and 3 months, the mini-transverse incision group showed a significantly better improvement of VAS, SSS and FSS score (P < 0.05). At 6 months, the differences were no longer significant (P > 0.05). In addition, the mini-transverse incision group showed a significantly reduced time to return to the work and activities, tendency to higher rate of excellence and good outcomes and fewer complications.

Conclusions

This novel technique via a mini-transverse incision and bush hook showed better clinical effectiveness and safety, and can be considered as an alternative for wrist tunnel release after the results are validated by higher-level evidence studies.

Evidence level: III.

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.

Mini-transverse incision using a novel bush-hook versus conventional open incision for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a prospective study

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of a mini-transverse incision with a bush-hook versus a conventional open incision for carpal tunnel release (CTR).

Methods

This was a prospective study. The decision to receive either technique (mini-transverse incision with a bush-hook or conventional open incision) was primarily based on patients’ choice. Patients’ symptom severity, functional status, and symptomatic pain were measured at pre-operation, 1 month, and 3 and 6 months postoperatively, and any relevant complications were recorded. Kelly’s scale was used to evaluate the overall clinical efficacy.

Results

Eighty-nine patients were included in the open CTR group and 85 patients in the mini-transverse incision group. The mini-transverse incision group had a significantly smaller incision (4.4±0.6 vs 44.8±3.7 mm), shorter surgical time (7.8±1.9 vs 21.2±3.4 min), and shorter hospital stay (3.7±1.6 vs 5.9±2.0 days) than did the open CTR group. Both groups showed significant improvements from baseline levels (all P<0.001). At postoperative 1 month and 3 months, the transverse incision group showed a significantly better VAS, SSS, and FSS (all P<0.05), but the difference was non-significant at 6 months except for FSS (P=0.022). Also, mini-transverse incision showed a significantly reduced time to return to work and activities, trend to a higher rate of excellence, and good and fewer complications than did the open CTR.

Conclusions

The mini-transverse incision exhibited better performance in surgery-related measures, symptomatic remission, functional recovery, and postoperative morbidity, thus could be considered a promising technique alternative.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-021-02608-x.

Minimally invasive carpal tunnel decompression using the KnifeLight: How I Do It

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel decompression is commonly performed open or endoscopically. Carpal tunnel release using the KnifeLight instrument (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI) is an alternative method established in 2000.

METHOD

The instrument has a cutting blade placed between two blunt flat tips with an integrated light source which helps to locate the tool blade by transillumination through the tissues. The instrument is inserted into an opening made in the wrist crease and transverse carpal ligament and used to divide the ligament.

CONCLUSION

This is a simple, efficient, and reproducible alternative for carpal tunnel decompression.

Comparison of tunnel ligament release instrument assisted minimally open surgery and conventional open surgery in the treatment of tarsal tunnel syndrome

AIM

This study compared the results of tarsal tunnel syndrome release surgeries using mini-open incisions and standard incisions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2012 until April 2018, 31 feet of 29 patients diagnosed with tarsal tunnel syndrome were treated surgically. 15 feet of 15 patients underwent surgeries utilizing minimally open technique and 16 feet of 14 patients underwent surgeries utilizing standard incisions. The following preoperative and postoperative data was obtained: foot and ankle muscle testing results, posture analyses, anthropometric measurements, joint movement ranges, pain complaints, endurance evaluation results, and functional test results. The mean follow-up period was 38 months (13-88 months).

RESULTS

The mean operation times were 26.8 min (23-30 min) using the standard incision and 13.3 min (9-17 min) using the mini-open incision (p < 0.05). In the preoperative and postoperative comparisons of the total muscle strength and total joint limit values of the healthy and affected feet, statistically significant improvements were observed in both the mini-open incision and standard incision groups (p < 0.05). Moreover, statistically significant improvements were seen in both groups in the postoperative repeated toe raises for 1 minute assessments of the affected foot (p < 0.05). In the foot function index and functional foot score values, statistically significant improvements were seen between the preoperative and postoperative values in both groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this study, using a tunnel ligament release instrument assisted minimally open surgery to loosen the laciniate ligament may present an alternative to the standard incision, with its significantly decreased morbidity rate and cosmetic success.

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials

Evidence shows that the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. The lack of transparent reporting impedes readers from judging the reliability and validity of trial findings and researchers from extracting information for systematic reviews and results in research waste. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the reporting of RCTs. Within person trials are used for conditions that can affect two or more body sites, and are a useful and efficient tool because the comparisons between interventions are within people. Such trials are most commonly conducted in ophthalmology, dentistry, and dermatology. The reporting of within person trials has, however, been variable and incomplete, hindering their use in clinical decision making and by future researchers. This document presents the CONSORT extension to within person trials. It aims to facilitate the reporting of these trials. It extends 16 items of the CONSORT 2010 checklist and introduces a modified flowchart and baseline table to enhance transparency. Examples of good reporting and evidence based rationale for CONSORT within person checklist items are provided.

Sickness absence after carpal tunnel release: a systematic review of the literature

Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of time to return to work (RTW) after carpal tunnel release (CTR), including return to different occupations and working patterns. Methods A systematic search from inception to 2016 was conducted using nine electronic databases, trial registries and grey literature repositories. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting RTW times after CTR were included. Study risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Time to RTW was summarized using median and range. Results A total of 56 relevant studies were identified: 18 randomized controlled trials and 38 observational studies. Only 4 studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. Reported RTW times ranged from 4-168 days. Few studies reported occupational information. Among 6 studies, median time to return to non-manual work was 21 days (range 7-41), compared with 39 days for manual work (range 18-101). Median time to return to modified or full duties was 23 days (ranges 12-50 and 17-64, respectively), as reported by 3 studies. There was no common method of defining, collecting or reporting RTW data. Conclusions This review highlights wide variation in reported RTW times after CTR. Whilst occupational factors may play a role, these were poorly reported, and there is currently limited evidence to inform individual patients of their expected duration of work absence after CTR. A standardized definition of RTW is needed, as well as an agreed method of collecting and reporting related data.

Preoperative Pain Sensitization Is Associated With Postoperative Pillar Pain After Open Carpal Tunnel Release

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pillar pain (deep-seated wrist pain worsened by leaning on the heel of the hand) sometimes occurs after carpal tunnel release (CTR), leading to weakness in the hand and delayed return to work. Increased pain sensitivity has been found to be associated with worse symptoms and poorer treatment response in a number of chronic musculoskeletal conditions, but few studies have investigated the association of pain sensitization with pillar pain after CTR.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is preoperative pain sensitization in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) associated with increased severity of pillar pain after open CTR? (2) What other demographic, electrophysiological, or preoperative clinical characteristics are associated with pillar pain after CTR?

METHODS

Over a 35-month period, one surgeon performed 162 open carpal tunnel releases. Patients were eligible if they had sufficient cognitive and language function to provide informed consent and completed a self-reported questionnaire; they were not eligible if they had nerve entrapment other than CTR or if the surgery was covered by workers compensation insurance. Based on these criteria, 148 (91%) were approached for this study. Of those, 17 (9%) were lost to followup before 12 months, leaving 131 for analysis. Their mean age was 54 years (range, 32-78 years), and 81% (106 of 131) were women; 34% (45 of 131) had less than a high school education. We preoperatively measured pain sensitization by assessing the patients' pressure pain thresholds by stimulating pressure-induced pain in the pain-free volar forearm and administering a self-reported Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire minor subscale, an instrument that assesses pain intensity in daily life situations. We evaluated postoperative pillar pain using the "table test" (having the patient lean on a table with their weight on their hands placed on the table's edge with elbows straight) with an 11-point ordinal scale at 3, 6, and 12 months after their surgical procedures. We conducted bivariate and multivariable analyses to determine whether the patients' clinical, demographic, and pain sensitization factors were associated with their postoperative pillar pain severity after CTR.

RESULTS

After controlling for relevant confounding variables such as age, education level, and functional states, we found that increased pillar pain severity was associated with the pressure pain threshold (β = -1.02 [-1.43 to -0.61], partial R = 11%, p = 0.021) and Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire minor (β = 1.22 [0.73-1.71], partial R = 17%, p = 0.013) at 3 months, but by 6 months, only Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire minor (β = 0.92 [0.63-1.21], partial R = 13%, p = 0.018) remained an associated variable for pillar pain. Additionally, gender (women) was associated with increased pain severity at 3 (β = 0.78 [0.52-1.04], partial R = 9%, p = 0.023) and 6 months (β = 0.72 [0.41-1.01], partial R = 8%, p = 0.027). At 3 months, pressure pain threshold, Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire minor, and gender (women) collectively accounted for 37% of the variance in pillar pain severity; at 6 months, Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire minor and gender (women) accounted for 21% of the variance, but no relationship between those factors and pillar pain was observed at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender (women) and preoperative pain sensitization measured by pressure pain threshold and self-reported Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire were associated with pillar pain severity up to 3 and 6 months after CTR, respectively. However, the influence of pain sensitization on pillar pain was diminished at 6 months and it did not show persistent effects beyond 12 months. Pain sensitization seems to be more important in the context of recovery from surgical intervention (in the presence of a pain condition) than in healthy states, and clinicians should understand the role of pain sensitization in the postoperative management of CTS. Future research may be needed to determine if therapeutic interventions to reduce sensitization will decrease the risk of pillar pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, prognostic study.

Neurologic complications in common wrist and hand surgical procedures

Nerve dysfunction after upper extremity orthopedic surgery is a recognized complication, and may result from a variety of different causes. Hand and wrist surgery require incisions and retraction that necessarily border on small peripheral nerves, which may be difficult to identify and protect with absolute certainty. This article reviews the rates and ranges of reported nerve dysfunction with respect to common surgical interventions for the distal upper extremity, including wrist arthroplasty, wrist arthrodesis, wrist arthroscopy, distal radius open reduction and internal fixation, carpal tunnel release, and thumb carpometacarpal surgery. A relatively large range of neurologic complications is reported, however many of the studies cited involve relatively small numbers of patients, and only rarely are neurologic complications included as primary outcome measures. Knowledge of these neurologic outcomes should help the surgeon to better counsel patients with regard to perioperative risk, as well as provide insight into workup and management of any adverse neurologic outcomes that may arise.

Effectiveness of Surgical and Postsurgical Interventions for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To present an evidence-based overview of the effectiveness of surgical and postsurgical interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched for relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April 8, 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria to select potential studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodologic quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A best-evidence synthesis was performed to summarize the results. Four systematic reviews and 33 RCTs were included. Surgery versus nonsurgical interventions, timing of surgery, and various surgical techniques and postoperative interventions were studied. Corticosteroid injection was more effective than surgery (strong evidence, short-term). Surgery was more effective than splinting or anti-inflammatory drugs plus hand therapy (moderate evidence, midterm and long-term). Manual therapy was more effective than surgical treatment (moderate evidence, short-term and midterm). Within surgery, corticosteroid irrigation of the median nerve before skin closure as additive to CTS release or the direct vision plus tunneling technique was more effective than standard open CTS release (moderate evidence, short-term). Furthermore, short was more effective than long bulky dressings, and a sensory retraining program was more effective than no program after surgery (moderate evidence, short-term). For all other interventions only conflicting, limited, or no evidence was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatment seems to be more effective than splinting or anti-inflammatory drugs plus hand therapy in the short-term, midterm, and/or long-term to treat CTS. However there is strong evidence that a local corticosteroid injection is more effective than surgery in the short-term, and moderate evidence that manual therapy is more effective than surgery in the short-term and midterm. There is no unequivocal evidence that suggests one surgical treatment is more effective than the other. Postsurgical, a short- (2-3 days) favored a long-duration (9-14 days) bulky dressing and a sensory retraining program seems to be more effective than no program in short-term. More research regarding the optimal timing of surgery for CTS is needed.

Simultaneous Bilateral Versus Staged Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Release: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

The purpose of this study was to determine if simultaneous bilateral carpal tunnel release (CTR) is a cost-effective strategy compared with bilateral staged CTR for the treatment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was created to compare the cost effectiveness of three strategies (ie, bilateral simultaneous CTR, bilateral staged CTR, and no treatment). Direct medical costs were estimated from 2013 Medicare reimbursement rates and wholesale drug costs in US dollars. Indirect costs were derived from consecutive patients undergoing unilateral or simultaneous bilateral CTR at our institution and from national average wages for 2013. Health state utility values were derived from a general population of volunteers using the Short Form-6 dimensions (SF-6D) health questionnaire.

RESULTS

Both surgical strategies were cost effective compared with the no-treatment strategy. Bilateral simultaneous CTR had lower total costs and higher total effectiveness than bilateral staged CTR, and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $921 per quality-adjusted life year compared with the no-treatment strategy. The conclusions of the analysis remained unchanged though all sensitivity analyses, displaying robustness against parameter uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical management is cost effective for the treatment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Bilateral simultaneous CTR, however, has lower total costs and higher total effectiveness compared with bilateral staged CTR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analysis I.

Ultra-Minimally Invasive Ultrasound-Guided Carpal Tunnel Release: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of 1-mm ultra-minimally invasive ultrasound-guided carpal tunnel release and 2-cm blind mini-open carpal tunnel release.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center individual parallel-group controlled-superiority randomized control trial in an ambulatory office-based setting at a third-level referral hospital. Eligible participants had clinical signs of primary carpal tunnel syndrome and positive electrodiagnostic test results and were followed for 12 months. Independent outcome assessors were blinded. Patients were randomized by concealed allocation (1:1) by an independent blocked computer-generated list. The postoperative score on the Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire was the primary variable. Grip strength and time for discontinuation of oral analgesics, complete wrist flexion-extension, relief of paresthesia, and return to normal daily activities (including work) were assessed.

RESULTS

Ninety-two of 128 eligible patients were randomly allocated and analyzed. QuickDASH scores were 2.2 to 3.3 times significantly lower in the ultra-minimally invasive group for the first 6 months: 23.6 [95% confidence interval (CI), 20.5, 27.4] versus 52.6 [95% CI, 49.4, 57.0] at the first week and 4.09 [95% CI, 1.5, 7.1] versus 13.0 [95% CI, 9.4, 18.9] at 6 months. Return to normal daily activities occurred significantly sooner in the ultra-minimally invasive group: 4.9 [95% CI, 3.2, 6.5] versus 25.4 [95% CI, 18.2, 32.6] days.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultra-minimally invasive carpal tunnel release provides earlier functional return and less postoperative morbidity with the same neurologic recovery as mini-open carpal tunnel release for patients with symptomatic primary carpal tunnel syndrome.

Intraindividual comparison between open and endoscopic release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

This study evaluated functional outcomes and safety after endoscopic and open bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome release in opposite hands of the same patients through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving both methods in opposite hands of patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome were identified via a systematic review of PUBMED and EMBASE.

RESULTS

Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from five randomized controlled trials involving 142 patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome were calculated using fixed- or random-effect methods, with a length of follow-up from 24 to 52 weeks after surgery. Compared with open release, endoscopic carpal tunnel release was associated with significantly better Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire functional status scores (mean difference [MD] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.02 - 0.25]; P = 0.02), but not symptom severity scores (RR = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15 to 0.04]; P = 0.25). Endoscopic release required a longer operative time, but the procedures did not differ significantly in visual analog scale pain scores (MD = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.08 to 0.11]; P = 0.75), handgrip strength (MD = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.03 to 2.37]; P = 0.88), digital sensibility static two-point discrimination (MD = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.03 to 0.70]; P = 0.07), or complication rates (MD = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.05], P = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

From intraindividual evidence, endoscopic release promoted better recovery of daily life functions than open release, but required a longer operative time. The procedures provided similar symptom relief and hand strength and sensibility recovery, and were safe for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.

Outcome of carpal tunnel release--correlation with wrist and wrist-palm anthropomorphic measurements

Wrist and wrist-palm measurements have been associated with the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. We found no reported study about how this correlation affects the outcome after surgery. We investigated the role of the measurements in predicting outcome after open carpal tunnel release. A total of 131 patients (88 female, 43 male) responded to our postal questionnaire using the Boston Carpal Tunnel assessment (65% response rate) at a minimum of 9 months post-operatively. Symptom and functional scores showed a strong correlation. There was no statistical difference in the outcome between wrist ratio (≥0.7 vs <0.7), wrist-palm ratio (≥0.41 vs <0.41) and gender, but a better functional score was very weakly correlated with a higher wrist ratio. A very large study would be needed to show any statistical correlation between both measurement and outcome.

Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release for idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The objective of this study is to do a meta-analysis of the literature and compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) for idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A comprehensive literature search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register was undertaken for randomized studies reporting carpal tunnel syndrome treated with ECTR or OCTR. The quality of randomized trials was critically assessed. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for safety and efficacy outcome variables were calculated by fixed-effect or random-effect methods with RevMan v.5.1 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. A total of 13 randomized trials were included by total retrieve and riddling. The results of our meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the overall complication rate (RR = 1.34, 95% CI [0.74, 2.43], P = 0.34), subjective satisfaction (RR = 1.0, 95% CI [0.93, 1.08], P = 0.92), time to return to work (mean difference = −3.52 [−8.15, 1.10], P = 0.14), hand grip and pinch strength, and the operative time (mean difference = −1.89, 95% CI [−5.84, 2.06]) between patients in the ECTR and OCTR groups (P = 0.16, 0.70, and 0.35, respectively). The rate of hand pain (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.53, 0.93], P = 0.02) in the ECTR group was significantly lower than that in the OCTR group. ECTR treatment seemed to cause more reversible postoperative nerve injuries as compared with OCTR (RR = 2.38, 95% CI [0.98, 5.77], P = 0.05). Although ECTR significantly reduced postoperative hand pain, it increased the possibility of reversible postoperative nerve injury in patients with idiopathic CTS. No statistical difference in the overall complication rate, subjective satisfaction, the time to return to work, postoperative grip and pinch strength, and operative time was observed between the two groups of patients.

Study to Assess Outcome After Open and Closed Carpal Tunnel Decompression

Carpal tunnel decompression (CTD) is the most commonly performed surgical procedure within a hand unit. We have analyzed data on outcomes after carpal decompression performed by both open and closed techniques to assess whether outcomes differed between the 2 procedures. Data were jointly gathered from 2 units. The aim was to assess the outcome after CTD. Completed data were gathered from 621 CTD procedures performed on 484 patients. Of the procedures, 358 were performed via a standard open CTD technique and 263 procedures were performed via a closed single-port Agee technique. Assessments were performed by means of the Levine-Katz questionnaire, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing, grip strength, and pinch-grip strength testing. Assessments were performed both preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. A randomly selected 10% of patients were also assessed at 12 months. The results were statistically better after closed CTD at the 6-month postoperative stage. However, the difference became less marked by 12-month postoperative stage. Our results show that CTD whether performed by an open or closed technique resulted in a similar outcome at the 12-month postoperative stage. However, those procedures performed by a closed technique offered a more rapid recovery in the first 6 months postoperative than by an open technique.

Ultra minimally invasive sonographically guided carpal tunnel release: an external pilot study

BACKGROUND

Authors have reported better outcomes, by reducing surgical dissection for carpal tunnel syndromes requiring surgery. Recently, a new sonographically guided technique for ultra minimally invasive (Ultra-MIS) carpal tunnel release (CTR) through 1mm incision has been described.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that a clinical trial for comparing Ultra-MIS versus Mini-open Carpal Tunnel Release (Mini-OCTR) was feasible.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To test our hypothesis, we conducted a pilot study for studying Ultra-MIS versus Mini-OCTR respectively performed through a 1mm or a 2 cm incision. We defined success if primary feasibility objectives (safety and efficacy) as well as secondary feasibility objectives (recruitment rates, compliance, completion, treatment blinding, personnel resources and sample size calculation for the clinical trial) could be matched. Score for Quick-DASH questionnaire at final follow-up was studied as the primary variable for the clinical trial. Turnover times were studied for assessing learning curve stability.

RESULTS

Forty patients were allotted. Primary and secondary feasibility objectives were matched with the following occurrences: 70.2% of eligible patients finally recruited; 4.2% of randomization refusals; 26.6 patients/month recruited; 100% patients receiving a blinded treatment; 97.5% compliance and 100% completion. A sample size of 91 patients was calculated for clinical trial validation. At final follow-up, preliminary results for Quick-Dash substantially favored Ultra-MIS over Mini-OCTR (average 14.54 versus 7.39) and complication rates were lower for Ultra-MIS (5% versus 20%). A stable learning curve was observed for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical trial is feasible. There is currently no evidence to contraindicate nor withhold the use of Ultra-MIS for CTR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Comparison of Knifelight Surgery versus Conventional Open Surgery in the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Background

A variety of surgical treatment methods for carpal tunnel syndrome are introduced recently, including open surgery, endoscopic and the Knifelight. It is hypothesized that Knifelight method could decrease scar tenderness and time before return to daily activities for patients and is accompanied with less disturbance to fine sensory nerves.

Objectives

To compare the Knifelight instrument and open carpal tunnel release with respect to scar length, operation duration, recovery time needed before return to work and amount of pain three weeks after surgery in patients with neurophysiologically confirmed carpal tunnel syndrome.

Patients and Methods

Fifty nine patients with indication for carpal tunnel release randomly assigned into two groups: open (n=30) or Knifelight (n=29). The patients compared regarding scar length, operation duration, time to return to daily activities and amount of pain at three weeks after operation based on Visual Analog Scale.

Results

There was no significant differences regarding age and sex in the two groups. The scar length, operation duration and time before return to daily activities were significantly lower in the Knifelight group. Although the mean visual analogue scale of Knifelight group found to be lower than the other, it was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

The Knifelight technique is accompanied with advantages over the open surgery regarding operation time, scar length and time to return to daily activities. The pain relieve based on Visual Analog Scale was not statistically different from conventional open surgery.

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release is preferred over mini-open despite similar outcome: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The decision to perform endoscopic versus the mini-open carpal tunnel release technique is most likely left to surgeons rather than patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We hypothesized that (1) at 3 months after surgery, the subjective outcomes of endoscopic release, performed on one hand, and mini-incision release, performed on the other, would not differ in patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; however, (2) each patient would likely prefer one technique over the other for specific reasons.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome had one hand randomized to undergo endoscopic release and the other to undergo mini-incision release. Each patient was assessed with the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) and DASH preoperatively and at each followup. Three months after surgery, the patients commented on which technique they preferred and completed a questionnaire regarding the reasons for not preferring the other technique.

RESULTS

The mean BCTQ symptom/function score and DASH improved similarly in the endoscopic release group and the mini-incision release group. Thirty-four patients preferred endoscopic release and 13 preferred the mini-incision technique. Scar or pillar pain was the most commonly cited factor in not preferring either technique followed by postoperative pain for the open technique and transient worsening of symptoms for the endoscopic technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar improvements in BCTQ and DASH scores after endoscopic and open techniques at 3 months postoperatively, the majority of our patients preferred the endoscopic technique. The most concerning reason for not preferring the other technique was scar or pillar pain.

Minimally invasive ultrasound-guided carpal tunnel release: a cadaver study

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common condition frequently requiring surgical intervention. We describe a new minimally invasive surgical technique for carpal tunnel release utilizing ultrasound (US) visualization.

METHODS

The technique was performed on 20 fresh frozen cadaver specimens. A surgical metallic probe with a "U"-shaped trough and upward curved distal tip was precisely positioned in the carpal tunnel with US guidance followed by division of the flexor retinaculum (FR) with a "V"-shaped scalpel.

RESULTS

Complete division of the FR was confirmed by US. Dissection performed on the specimens confirmed complete release of FR and absence of neurovascular injury. The distance from the division of the FR to these structures, the "safety margins," was measured.

CONCLUSIONS

This new technique for carpal tunnel release appears to combine the safety and efficacy of open carpal tunnel surgery with the advantages of the minimally invasive techniques.

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

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review was conducted to evaluate return to work (RTW) following minimally invasive carpal tunnel surgery versus open carpal tunnel release. This study also assesses how RTW as an outcome measure was examined in previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The bibliographic databases Medline, AMED and CINAHL were systematically searched. We found 15 relevant RCTs. Meta-analysis was possible only for four studies.

RESULTS

The result indicates that minimally invasive surgery offers earlier return to work compared to open carpal tunnel release (mean difference -7.2 days; 95% CI -10 to -4.4 days). There were remarkable inconsistencies in how return to work as an outcome measure was examined in different RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Calculating standardised mean difference in future RCTs would allow future reviews to be more inclusive of the evidence. The authors suggest more consistent approach for evaluating work-related features in future studies. We recommend that new fit note categories introduced by UK Department of Work and Pension (unfit for all work/return to modified work or work adaptations/return to normal work) would be used to identify different levels of return to work.

Predictors of scar pain after open carpal tunnel release

PURPOSE

To identify the predictors of scar pain after open carpal tunnel release (CTR).

METHODS

We enrolled 83 patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome treated by open CTR. All patients completed the Brigham and Women's (Boston) carpal tunnel questionnaire (BCTQ) preoperatively. We assessed levels of depression preoperatively using the Center for the Epidemiological Study of Depression (CES-D) scale, and pain anxiety using the Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale. At 3 months after surgery, patients were asked to self-assess treatment satisfaction and scar pain using a 10-point ordinal scale and to complete the BCTQ.

RESULTS

The mean BCTQ-symptom (BCTQ-S) score decreased significantly from 2.7 ± 1.1 preoperatively to 1.6 ± 1.0 at 3 months postoperatively, and mean BCTQ-function score decreased significantly from 2.4 ± 1.1 to 1.4 ± 1.0. Overall, scar pain intensity at 3 months postoperatively ranged from 0 to 8 (mean, 2.4 ± 2.2), and overall satisfaction ranged from 2 to 10 (mean, 7.6 ± 2.6). The intensity of the scar pain was significantly correlated with the CES-D scale and BCTQ-S. Multivariable regression analysis showed that depression, assessed using the CES-D scale, and postoperative symptoms, assessed using the BCTQ-S, predicted scar pain intensity, which accounted for 38% of scar pain intensity variance.

CONCLUSIONS

Depression score and postoperative symptoms predicted scar pain intensity after open CTR. However, the most important contributor to scar pain intensity variance remains unidentified.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic I.

Carpal tunnel syndrome. Part II: effectiveness of surgical treatments--a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To present an evidence-based overview of the effectiveness of surgical and postsurgical interventions to treat carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched for relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria to select potential studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodologic quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A best-evidence synthesis was performed to summarize the results of the included studies. Two reviews and 25 RCTs were included. Moderate evidence was found in favor of surgical treatment compared with splinting or anti-inflammatory drugs plus hand therapy in the midterm and long term, and for the effectiveness of corticosteroid irrigation of the median nerve before skin closure as additive to carpal tunnel release in the short term. Limited evidence was found in favor of a double-incision technique compared with the standard incision technique. Also, limited evidence was found in favor of a mini-open technique assisted by a Knifelight instrument compared with a standard open release at 19 months of follow-up. However, in the short term and at 30 months of follow-up, no significant differences were found between the mini-open technique assisted by a Knifelight instrument compared with a standard open release. Many studies compared different surgical interventions, but no evidence was found in favor of any one of them. No RCTs explored the optimal timing strategy for surgery. No evidence was found for the efficacy of various presurgical or postsurgical treatment programs, including splinting.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatment seems to be more effective than splinting or anti-inflammatory drugs plus hand therapy in the midterm and long term to treat CTS. However, there is no unequivocal evidence that suggests one surgical treatment is more effective than the other. More research is needed to study conservative to surgical treatment in which also should be taken into account the optimal timing of surgery. Future research should also concentrate on optimal presurgical and postsurgical treatment programs.

Minimally invasive carpal tunnel release

We prospectively compared the safety and effectiveness of mini-incision (group A) and a limited open technique (group B) for carpal tunnel release (CTR) in 185 consecutive patients operated between November 1999 and May 2001, with a 5-year minimum follow-up. Patients in Group A had a minimally invasive approach (<2 cm incision), performed using the KnifeLight (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Michigan) instrument. Patients in Group B had a limited longitudinal incision (3-4 cm). Patient status was evaluated with an Italian modified version of the Boston Carpal Tunnel questionnaire, administered preoperatively and at 19, 30, and 60 postoperative months. Mini-incision CTR showed advantages over standard technique in early recovery, pillar pain, and recurrence rate. The recovery period after mini-incision is shorter than after standard procedure.

Mini open carpal tunnel release using Knifelight: evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of using a single wrist incision (cadaveric study)

This cadaveric study evaluates the margin of safety and technical efficacy of mini open carpal tunnel release performed using Knifelight (Stryker Instruments) through a transverse 1 cm wrist incision. A single investigator released 32 wrists in 17 cadavers. The wrists were then explored to assess the completeness of release and damage to vital structures including the superficial palmar arch, palmar cutaneous branch and recurrent branch of the median nerve. All the releases were complete and no injury to the median nerve and other structures were observed. The mean distance of the recurrent motor branch to the ligamentous divisions was 5.7 +/- 2.4 mm, superficial palmar arch was 8.7 +/- 3.1 mm and palmar cutaneous branch to the ligamentous division was 7.2 +/- 2.4 mm. The mean length of the transverse carpal ligament was 29.3 +/- 3.7 mm. Guyon's canal was preserved in all cases.

Treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome

In September 2008, the Board of Directors of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons approved a clinical practice guideline on the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. This guideline was subsequently endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. The guideline makes nine specific recommendations: A course of nonsurgical treatment is an option in patients diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. Early surgery is an option with clinical evidence of median nerve denervation or when the patient so elects. Another nonsurgical treatment or surgery is suggested when the current treatment fails to resolve symptoms within 2 to 7 weeks. Sufficient evidence is not available to provide specific treatment recommendations for carpal tunnel syndrome associated with such conditions as diabetes mellitus and coexistent cervical radiculopathy. Local steroid injection or splinting is suggested before considering surgery. Oral steroids or ultrasound are options. Carpal tunnel release is recommended as treatment. Heat therapy is not among the options to be used. Surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome by complete division of the flexor retinaculum is recommended. Routine use of skin nerve preservation and epineurotomy is not suggested when carpal tunnel release is performed. Prescribing preoperative antibiotics for carpal tunnel surgery is an option. It is suggested that the wrist not be immobilized postoperatively after routine carpal tunnel surgery. It is suggested that instruments such as the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire be used to assess patient responses to carpal tunnel syndrome treatment for research.

Long-term outcome after carpal tunnel decompression - a prospective randomised study of the Indiana Tome and a standard limited palmar incision

This randomised trial compared the results of carpal tunnel decompression using the TM Indiana Tome (Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) and a standard limited palmar open incision. Two hundred patients were randomly selected to have a carpal tunnel decompression with either the Indiana Tome or a limited palmar technique. They were assessed clinically for 3 months and using the Levine-Katz self-assessment evaluation for 7 years. After 7 years, there were 62 returned questionnaires from the open group and 53 from the Tome group. There were no significant differences in functional scores, pain, scar tenderness, pinch and grip strength at 3 months. There were two complications in the open group and nine in the Tome group, including one median nerve injury. There was both a higher rate of immediate complications, and more recurrences and persisting symptoms at 7 years in the Indiana Tome group.

Power grip, pinch grip, manual muscle testing or thenar atrophy - which should be assessed as a motor outcome after carpal tunnel decompression? A systematic review

Background

Objective assessment of motor function is frequently used to evaluate outcome after surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However a range of outcome measures are used and there appears to be no consensus on which measure of motor function effectively captures change. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the methods used to assess motor function in randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions for CTS. A secondary aim was to evaluate which instruments reflect clinical change and are psychometrically robust.

Methods

The bibliographic databases Medline, AMED and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions for CTS. Data on instruments used, methods of assessment and results of tests of motor function was extracted by two independent reviewers.

Results

Twenty-two studies were retrieved which included performance based assessments of motor function. Nineteen studies assessed power grip dynamometry, fourteen studies used both power and pinch grip dynamometry, eight used manual muscle testing and five assessed the presence or absence of thenar atrophy. Several studies used multiple tests of motor function. Two studies included both power and pinch strength and reported descriptive statistics enabling calculation of effect sizes to compare the relative responsiveness of grip and pinch strength within study samples. The study findings suggest that tip pinch is more responsive than lateral pinch or power grip up to 12 weeks following surgery for CTS.

Conclusion

Although used most frequently and known to be reliable, power and key pinch dynamometry are not the most valid or responsive tools for assessing motor outcome up to 12 weeks following surgery for CTS. Tip pinch dynamometry more specifically targets the thenar musculature and appears to be more responsive. Manual muscle testing, which in theory is most specific to the thenar musculature, may be more sensitive if assessed using a hand held dynamometer – the Rotterdam Intrinsic Handheld Myometer. However further research is needed to evaluate its reliability and responsiveness and establish the most efficient and psychometrically robust method of evaluating motor function following surgery for CTS.

Surgical treatment options for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder for which several surgical treatment options are available.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of the various surgical techniques in relieving symptoms and promoting return to work or activities of daily living and to compare the occurrence of side-effects and complications in patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated the searches in 2006. We conducted computer-aided searches of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Register (searched in June 2006), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2006), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2006) and also tracked references in bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing various surgical techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors performed study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data extraction independently of each other.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included in the review of which 10 were newly identified in this update. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from fair to good; however, the use of allocation concealment was mentioned explicitly in only seven trials. Many studies failed to present the results in sufficient detail to enable statistical pooling. Pooling was also impeded by the vast variety of outcome measures that were applied in the various studies. None of the existing alternatives to standard open carpal tunnel release offered significantly better relief from symptoms in the short- or long-term. In three studies with a total of 294 participants, endoscopic carpal tunnel release resulted in earlier return to work or activities of daily living than open carpal tunnel release, with a weighted mean difference of -6 days (95% CI -9 to -3 days).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no strong evidence supporting the need for replacement of standard open carpal tunnel release by existing alternative surgical procedures for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The decision to apply endoscopic carpal tunnel release instead of open carpal tunnel release seems to be guided by the surgeon's and patient's preferences.

Minimally invasive carpal tunnel decompression using the KnifeLight

OBJECTIVES

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common condition causing hand pain, dysfunction, and paresthesia. Endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression offers many advantages compared with conventional open surgical decompression. However, it is equipment intensive and requires familiarity with endoscopic surgery. We review a minimally invasive technique to divide the flexor retinaculum by using a new instrument, the KnifeLight (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Michigan), which combines the advantages of the open and endoscopic methods, without the need for endoscopic set-up.

METHODS

Between July 2003 and April 2005, 44 consecutive patients (26 women [59%] and 18 men [36%]), with clinical signs and symptoms, as well as electrodiagnostic findings consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome, who did not respond to non-surgical treatment, underwent the new procedure. All patients were asked about scar hypertrophy, scar tenderness, and pillar pain. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) was used to determine overall hand function, activities of daily living, work performance, pain, aesthetics, and satisfaction with hand function. Other preoperative testing included grip strength and lateral pinch strength. Grip strength was measured using the Jamar hand dynamometer (Asimov Engineering Co., Los Angeles, CA); lateral key pinch was measured using the Jamar hydraulic pinch gauge. Postoperative evaluations were scheduled at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after the procedure. A small 10-mm incision was made in the wrist crease and a small opening was made at the transverse carpal ligament. The KnifeLight tool was inserted, and the ligament was incised completely. Follow-up evaluations with use of quantitative measurements of grip strength, pinch strength, and hand dexterity were performed at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Fifty procedures were performed on 22 left hands (44%) and 28 right hands (56%). There were no complications related to the approach. All patients were able to use their hands immediately after the surgery. Scar tenderness and incisional pain were mild-to-moderate in the first 2 weeks, and these symptoms disappeared completely 6 months after surgery. Significant postoperative improvements in pain relief, patient satisfaction, hand function, daily activities, and work performance as assessed with the MHQ were noted at 3 and 6 months after surgery. Furthermore, significant improvement in patients' hand grip and pinch strength were observed 6 months after surgery. From a literature review, we found that the mean operation time of KnifeLight carpal tunnel release was the shortest compared with the conventional and endoscopic carpal tunnel release techniques. The median time needed for our patients to return to work was also the shortest among the different techniques.

CONCLUSION

Excellent functional outcomes and satisfaction were achieved using the KnifeLight for carpal tunnel decompression. Our minimally invasive method offers a quick, easy, and effective alternative to conventional or endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression.

A systematic review of outcomes assessed in randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a reference tool

BACKGROUND

A wide range of outcomes have been assessed in trials of interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), however there appears to be little consensus on what constitutes the most relevant outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the outcomes assessed in randomized clinical trials of surgical interventions for CTS and to compare these to the concepts contained in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).

METHODS

The bibliographic databases Medline, AMED and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials of surgical treatment for CTS. The outcomes assessed in these trials were identified, classified and linked to the different domains of the ICF.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies were retrieved which met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently assessed outcomes were self-reported symptom resolution, grip or pinch strength and return to work. The majority of outcome measures employed assessed impairment of body function and body structure and a small number of studies used measures of activity and participation.

CONCLUSION

The ICF provides a useful framework for identifying the concepts contained in outcome measures employed to date in trials of surgical intervention for CTS and may help in the selection of the most appropriate domains to be assessed, especially where studies are designed to capture the impact of the intervention at individual and societal level. Comparison of results from different studies and meta-analysis would be facilitated through the use of a core set of standardised outcome measures which cross all domains of the ICF. Further work on developing consensus on such a core set is needed.

[Efficacy of modified acupotome combined with blocking therapy in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome]

OBJECTIVE

To observe the efficacy of modified acupotome combined with blocking therapy in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

METHODS

Fifty-five patients with CTS were divided into three groups, which were modified acupotome group including 26 CTS patients with 28 lesions treated by modified acupotome combined with blocking therapy, traditional acupotome group including 14 CTS patients with 16 lesions treated by traditional acupotome combined with blocking therapy, and blocking therapy group including 15 CTS patients with 15 lesions only treated by local blocking. The treatment outcome and one-year recurrence rate were observed.

RESULTS

The response rate and one-year recurrence rate after operation in the modified acupotome group were 85.7% (24/28) and 20.8% (5/24) respectively, which had no significant differences as compared with 81.3% (13/16) and 38.5% (5/13) in the traditional acupotome group. The response rate and one-year recurrence rate after operation in the above two groups were both improved significantly as compared with those in the blocking therapy group which were 46.7% (7/15) and 85.7% (6/7) respectively. There were no acupotome-related adverse effects and injuries observed in the modified acupotome group.

CONCLUSION

The modified acupotome is a considerable treatment method for CTS with respect to its simple manipulation and high effectiveness.

Analysis of reporting return to work in studies comparing open with endoscopic carpal tunnel release: A review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In studies comparing open with endoscopic carpal tunnel release, return to work (RTW) is often cited as a primary outcome.

OBJECTIVE

The present study assessed the reporting of RTW and evaluated its usefulness in studies comparing these two methods of carpal tunnel release.

METHODS

A computerized search was conducted to find randomized controlled trials that compared open with endoscopic carpal tunnel release, with RTW as an outcome measure. The factors that were compared across the studies included definition of RTW, units quantifying RTW, measures of hand function, patients' type of employment, worker's compensation or insurance status, patients' handedness, unilateral or bilateral carpal tunnel release, and use of rehabilitation.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria for the present systematic review. Of the 15 studies reviewed, there were seven definitions of RTW. All studies defined whether the patients underwent unilateral or bilateral carpal tunnel release but there was variability in the calculation of RTW when bilateral releases were performed. The impact of worker's compensation or insurance, type of work, handedness and rehabilitation were inconsistently addressed as factors affecting RTW.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RTW ideally reflects function and recovery, it is inadequately measured and reported. The present review revealed that, in studies comparing open carpal tunnel release with endoscopic carpal tunnel release, there is lack of uniformity in reporting RTW, which may contribute to the inconclusive results for RTW. Future research needs to ensure that RTW is used in a consistent manner.

Surgical treatment options for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder, for which several surgical treatment options are available.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of the various surgical techniques in relieving symptoms and promoting return to work and/or activities of daily living and to compare the occurrence of side-effects and complications, in patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated the searches in 2003. We conducted computer-aided searches of the trials register of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group (searched in July 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2003) and tracked references in bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing various surgical techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers performed study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data abstraction independently of each other.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included in the review. The methodological quality of the trials was fair to good. However, the application of allocation concealment was mentioned explicitly in only one trial. Many studies failed to present the results in sufficient detail to enable statistical pooling. Pooling was also impeded by the vast variety of outcome measures that were applied in the various studies. None of the existing alternatives to standard open carpal tunnel release seem to offer better relief from symptoms in the short- or long-term. There was conflicting evidence about whether endoscopic carpal tunnel release resulted in earlier return to work and/or activities of daily living than open carpal tunnel release.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no strong evidence supporting the need for replacement of standard open carpal tunnel release by existing alternative surgical procedures for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.