Early results of conventional versus two-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release. A prospective study

Open versus Single- or Dual-Portal Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Compared to the traditional open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), the additional safety and efficacy benefits of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of ECTR versus conventional OCTR as well as determine if a difference exists between the 2 most common endoscopic techniques: the single-portal and the dual-portal endoscopic technique.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and the CENTRAL. Additional articles were identified by handsearching reference lists. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of ECTR with OCTR technique. Outcomes assessed included length of surgery, patient reported symptom and functional measures, time to return to work, and complications. A sub-group analysis was performed to indirectly compare single- versus dual-portal endoscopic approaches. Statistical analysis was performed via a random-effects model using Review Manager 5 Software.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of 23 studies revealed a significantly higher incidence of transient postoperative nerve injury with ECTR, regardless of the number of portals, as compared with OCTR, although overall complication and re-operation rates were equivalent. Scar tenderness was significantly diminished with dual-portal endoscopic release when compared to single-portal and open methods. The rates of pillar pain, symptom relief, and patient reported satisfaction did not differ significantly between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although endoscopic surgery may be appealing in terms of reduced postoperative morbidity and a faster return to work for patients, surgeons should be mindful of the associated learning curve and higher incidence of transient nerve injury. Further study is required to identify if an advantage exists between different endoscopic techniques.

Evaluation of Factors Affecting Return to Work Following Carpal Tunnel Release: A Statewide Cohort Study of Workers' Compensation Subjects

PURPOSE

Most randomized trials comparing open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) to endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) are not specific to a working population and focus mainly on how surgical technique has an impact on outcomes. This study's primary goal was to evaluate factors affecting days out of work (DOOW) following carpal tunnel release (CTR) in a working population and to evaluate for differences in medical costs, indemnity payments, disability ratings, and opioid use between OCTR and ECTR with the intent of determining whether one or the other surgical method was a determining factor.

METHODS

Using the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation claims database, individuals were identified who underwent unilateral isolated CTR between 1993 and 2018. We excluded those who were on total disability, who underwent additional surgery within 6 months of their index CTR, including contralateral or revision CTR, and those not working during the same month as their index CTR. Outcomes were evaluated at 6 months after surgery. Multivariable linear regression was performed to evaluate covariates associated with DOOW.

RESULTS

Of the 4596 included participants, 569 (12.4%) and 4027 (87.6%) underwent ECTR and OCTR, respectively. Mean DOOW were 58.4 for participants undergoing OCTR and 56.6 for those undergoing ECTR. Carpal tunnel release technique was not predictive of DOOW. Net medical costs were 20.7% higher for those undergoing ECTR. Multivariable linear regression demonstrated the following significant predictors of higher DOOW: preoperative opioid use, legal representation, labor-intensive occupation, increasing lag time from injury to filing of a worker's compensation claim, and female sex. Being married, higher income community, and working in the public sector were associated with fewer DOOW.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large statewide worker's compensation population, demographic, occupational, psychosocial, and litigatory factors have a significant impact on DOOW following CTR, whereas differences in surgical technique between ECTR and OCTR did not.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic III.

Patient-Centred Outcomes Following Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature

Background: Patients’ individual interpretations of their own health outcomes are becoming increasingly important metrics in defining clinical success across all specialties, especially in hand surgery. However, there is a relative paucity of data using validated health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) assessments for carpal tunnel release (CTR). The purpose of this study was to review published outcomes on traditional open CTR to formally assess the current need for more accurate, validated assessment tools to evaluate CTR-specific HR-QoL.

Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were queried according to PRISMA guidelines for all studies investigating patient-reported outcomes following traditional open CTR. Analysis focused on HR-QoL, symptomatic relief, functional status, overall satisfaction and return to work or activities of daily living (ADLs).

Results: In total, 588 unique articles were screened, and 30 studies met selection criteria. HR-QoL was formally assessed in only 3 studies using the validated 36-Item Short Form Survey. Symptomatic relief was measured in 29 (97%) studies, making it the most frequently reported item, whereas functional ability was reported by 19 (63%) studies. The Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire was the most frequently utilised tool to assess symptomatic relief (13/30) and functional improvement (11/30). Using unvalidated custom surveys, 14 studies (47%) reported patient satisfaction and 12 studies (40%) documented time to return to work/ADLs.

Conclusion: There is a dearth of studies utilising HR-QoL assessment tools to evaluate outcomes following traditional open CTR. The creation and validation of new CTR-specific HR-QoL tools accounting for both physical and psychological health is warranted.

Level of Evidence: Level II (Therapeutic)

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.

Early Outcomes of Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release

PURPOSE

To compare the short-term outcomes of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), including patient-reported outcomes, pain and satisfaction scores, return to work, and postoperative prescription pain medication use.

METHODS

We included all patients over 18 years of age undergoing carpal tunnel release at a single hand center between January 2018 and December 2019. The carpal tunnel release method was driven by variations in surgeon practice. Data from patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) questionnaires and brief Michigan hand outcomes questionnaires and data on patient-reported pain levels, satisfaction with care, return to work, and postoperative prescription pain medication use were collected at preoperative visits and the first follow-up visit between postoperative days 7 and 14.

RESULTS

We included 678 (586 ECTR and 92 OCTR) patients. The median age was 58 years, and 75% of the patients were women. At early follow up, patients who underwent OCTR reported significantly lower postoperative PROMIS upper-extremity scores than those who underwent ECTR (median, 32 vs 36 points, respectively) but similar postoperative PROMIS pain interference, global physical health, global mental health, and brief Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire scores. The postoperative pain and satisfaction scores were similar between the 2 groups. In multivariable models, patients who underwent OCTR had 62% lower odds of returning to work and 30% greater odds of remaining on a postoperative pain prescription at the first follow-up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found no evidence suggesting the definitive superiority of 1 surgical technique with regard to clinical outcomes in the early postoperative period. However, OCTR was associated with lower postoperative PROMIS upper-extremity scores of unclear clinical significance, higher odds of remaining on pain medication, and lower odds of returning to work by the first postoperative visit. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release may be preferred in patients who need to return to work within the first 2 weeks after the procedure.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Optimizing Costs and Outcomes for Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from Societal and Health-Care System Perspectives

BACKGROUND

It is unclear which carpal tunnel release (CTR) strategy (i.e., which combination of surgical technique and setting) is most cost-effective. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare (1) open CTR in the procedure room (OCTR/PR), (2) OCTR in the operating room (OCTR/OR), and (3) endoscopic CTR in the operating room (ECTR/OR).

METHODS

A decision analytic model was used to compare costs and health utilities between treatment strategies. Utility and probability parameters were identified from the literature. Medical costs were estimated with Medicare ambulatory surgical payment data. Indirect costs were related to days out of work due to surgical recovery and complications. The effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the societal and health-care system perspectives with use of a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, OCTR/PR was more cost-effective than OCTR/OR and ECTR/OR from the societal perspective. The mean total costs and QALYs per patient were $29,738 ± $4,098 and 0.88 ± 0.08 for OCTR/PR, $30,002 ± $4,098 and 0.88 ± 0.08 for OCTR/OR, and $41,311 ± $4,833 and 0.87 ± 0.08 for ECTR/OR. OCTR/PR was also the most cost-effective strategy from the health-care system perspective. These findings were robust in the probabilistic sensitivity analyses: OCTR/PR was the dominant strategy (greater QALYs at a lower cost) in 55% and 61% of iterations from societal and health-care system perspectives, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that OCTR/PR and OCTR/OR remained more cost-effective than ECTR/OR from a societal perspective under the following conditions: $0 surgical cost of ECTR, 0% revision rate following ECTR, equalization of the return-to-work rate between OCTR and ECTR, or 0 days out of work following ECTR. OCTR/OR became more cost-effective than OCTR/PR with the median nerve injury rate tripling and doubling from societal and health-care system perspectives, respectively, or if surgical direct costs in the PR exceeded those in the OR.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with OCTR/OR and ECTR/OR, OCTR/PR minimizes costs to the health-care system and society while providing favorable outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analysis Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Five Wrist Operations That Give the Best Results

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this article and viewing the videos, the participant should be able to: 1. Recognize the following five wrist operations as consistent options for different wrist injuries: carpal tunnel release, medial femoral condyle bone flap for scaphoid nonunion associated with carpal collapse and avascular necrosis, scaphocapitate arthrodesis for Kienböck disease, percutaneous screw fixation of nondisplaced scaphoid fracture, and four-corner arthrodesis. 2. Know the state-of-the-art of these five procedures. 3. State the indications of each operation. 4. List the surgical steps of these five procedures.

SUMMARY

The wrist is a complex joint that concentrates different types of tissues (e.g., bone, cartilage, ligaments, nerves, vessels) and a broad different spectrum of diseases. Treatment of wrist injuries has improved during recent years, mainly because of improvement in strategy, techniques, microsurgical equipment, understanding anatomy and improvements in technology. In this article, we present the five operations (i.e., carpal tunnel release, medial femoral condyle bone flap for scaphoid nonunion associated with carpal collapse and avascular necrosis, scaphocapitate arthrodesis for Kienböck disease, percutaneous screw fixation of nondisplaced scaphoid fracture, and four-corner arthrodesis) that have consistently given good outcomes in patients suffering from different wrist injuries/maladies.

Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery- A Systematic Review of Open and Endoscopic Approaches

CONTEXT

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most frequent peripheral compression-induced neuropathy observed in patients worldwide. Surgery is necessary when conservative treatments fail and severe symptoms persist. Traditional Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) with visualization of carpal tunnel is considered the gold standard for decompression. However, Endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR), a less invasive technique than OCTR is emerging as a standard of care in recent years.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Criteria for this systematic review were derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two review authors searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database in May 2018 using the following MeSH terms from 1993-2016: 'carpal tunnel syndrome,' 'median nerve neuropathy,' 'endoscopic carpal tunnel release,' 'endoscopic surgery,' 'open carpal tunnel release,' 'open surgery,' and 'carpal tunnel surgery.' Additional sources, including Google Scholar, were added. Also, based on bibliographies and consultation with experts, appropriate publications were identified. The primary outcome measure was pain relief.

RESULTS

For this analysis, 27 studies met inclusion criteria. Results indicate that ECTR produced superior post-operative pain outcomes during short-term follow-up. Of the studies meeting inclusion criteria for this analysis, 17 studies evaluated pain as a primary or secondary outcome, and 15 studies evaluated pain, pillar tenderness, or incision tenderness at short-term follow-up. Most studies employed a VAS for assessment, and the majority reported superior short-term pain outcomes following ECTR at intervals ranging from one hour up to 12 weeks. Several additional studies reported equivalent pain outcomes at short-term follow-up as early as one week. No study reported inferior short-term pain outcomes following ECTR.

CONCLUSIONS

ECTR and OCTR produce satisfactory results in pain relief, symptom resolution, patient satisfaction, time to return to work, and adverse events. There is a growing body of evidence favoring the endoscopic technique for pain relief, functional outcomes, and satisfaction, at least in the early post-operative period, even if this difference disappears over time. Several studies have demonstrated a quicker return to work and activities of daily living with the endoscopic technique.

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.

A Clinical Study of the Modified Thread Carpal Tunnel Release

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have indicated that the thread carpal tunnel release (TCTR) is a safe and effective technique. Through a study on 11 cadaveric wrists, the TCTR procedure was modified and the needle control accuracy was improved to 0.15 to 0.2 mm, which is precise enough to preserve superficial palmar aponeurosis (SupPA), Berrettini branch, and common digital nerves. The aim of the present study was to verify the modified TCTR clinically.

METHODS

The modified TCTR was performed on 159 hands of 116 patients. The Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire was used for assessing the outcomes. Statistical analyses were used to compare the outcomes with the available data from the literature for the open and endoscopic techniques.

RESULTS

TCTR led to significant improvement in the short-term results, and the outcomes were better in long-term results compared with the open or endoscopic release. The SupPA, Berrettini branch, and common digital nerves were protected. There was no neurovascular complication for any case. Significant relief of symptoms was observed 3 to 5 hours post procedure. Most patients used their hands on the day of the procedure for simple daily activity. Patients reported their sleep quality was improved on the surgical day. Most patients with office jobs were able to return to work on postoperative day 1, and those with repetitive jobs returned to work in about 2 weeks. The statistical evidence proves that the modified TCTR procedure results in improved clinical outcomes as compared with open carpal tunnel release (CTR) and endoscopic CTR.

CONCLUSIONS

The TCTR procedure has been shown to be a safe and effective technique for CTR. The modified TCTR procedure minimizes postoperative complications, such as pillar pain, scar tenderness, or functional weakness, by avoiding unnecessary injuries to the surrounding structures around the transverse carpal ligament during the procedure.

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.

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.

Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time.

METHODS

The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included.

RESULTS

Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

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.

Carpal tunnel syndrome - Part II (treatment)

The treatments for non-deficit forms of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) are corticoid infiltration and/or a nighttime immobilization brace. Surgical treatment, which includes sectioning the retinaculum of the flexors (retinaculotomy), is indicated in cases of resistance to conservative treatment in deficit forms or, more frequently, in acute forms. In minimally invasive techniques (endoscopy and mini-open), and even though the learning curve is longer, it seems that functional recovery occurs earlier than in the classical surgery, but with identical long-term results. The choice depends on the surgeon, patient, severity, etiology and availability of material. The results are satisfactory in close to 90% of the cases. Recovery of strength requires four to six months after regression of the pain of pillar pain type. This surgery has the reputation of being benign and has a complication rate of 0.2-0.5%.

Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel decompression

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) using a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11 of 12, Nov 2012), PUBMED (1980 to Dec 2012), and EMBASE (1980 to Dec 2012) were used to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated endoscopic vs open methods for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Studies to be used were independently identified by two researchers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving 1,596 hands were included. Based on the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias, four studies were rated as high quality, five studies were rated as moderate quality, and six were rated as low quality. Our meta-analysis indicated that ECTR resulted in better recovery of pinch strength, earlier time of return to work, but a higher rate of reversible nerve problems (including neurapraxia and numbness) than OCTR. ECTR also resulted in a lower rate of irreversible nerve damage (P > 0.05), wound problems (including wound infection, wound hematoma and wound dehiscence) and reflex sympathetic dystrophy (P > 0.05) compared with OCTR. Our meta-analysis revealed no obvious statistical differences in relief of symptoms (pain and paraesthesia), recovery of grip strength and reoperation rate.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials demonstrated that ECTR and OCTR were similar in relief of symptoms, but ECTR resulted in better recovery of function and earlier return to work and was safer than OCTR.

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.

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.

Application of the CONSORT statement to randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release

BACKGROUND

The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was developed by a group of clinical trialists, biostatisticians, epidemiologists and biomedical editors as a means to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of the present study is to assess the reporting quality of published RCTs that compare endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) with open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) using the CONSORT statement.

METHODS

A computerized literature search was conducted to identify all RCTs published from January 1989 to November 2004 that compared ECTR with OCTR. Foreign language studies were also included, and translated versions of these studies were obtained. Two investigators independently reviewed each eligible article and determined whether the authors reported on each of the 22 items of the CONSORT statement. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The mean scores for studies published before the introduction of the CONSORT statement and those published afterward were compared. Similarly, a comparison was made between foreign language studies and those published in English.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs comparing ECTR with OCTR met the inclusion criteria. The total scores on the CONSORT checklist ranged from 3 to 20, with a mean score of 9.83+/-3.79 (the maximum possible score was 22). The six studies published in foreign language journals had a statistically significantly lower mean score than the studies published in English language journals (7.00+/-2.76 versus 11.25+/-3.49, respectively; P<0.05). The mean score was higher for studies published after 1996 than for those published in 1996 or earlier (12.14+/-3.80 versus 8.36+/-3.11, respectively; P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting improved over time, but no study met all 22 criteria of the CONSORT statement. The CONSORT scores were higher for studies published after 1996 and for studies published in English language journals. Despite the improvement after 1996, most of these RCTs only reported one-half of the items listed on the CONSORT statement. Future investigators of surgical RCTs should make an effort to comply with the CONSORT checklist.

A cost-utility analysis of open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release

BACKGROUND

Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) is the standard procedure for the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. With the advent of minimally invasive surgery, endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) was introduced.

OBJECTIVE

To use a decision analytical model to compare ECTR with OCTR in an economic evaluation.

METHODS

Direct medical costs were obtained from a Canadian university hospital. Utility values obtained from experts, presented with carpal tunnel syndrome outcome health states, were transformed into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The probabilities of the health states associated with both techniques were obtained from the literature.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $124,311.32/QALY gained, providing strong evidence to reject ECTR when ECTR is performed in the main operating room and OCTR is performed in the day surgery unit. A one-way sensitivity analysis in the present study demonstrated that when both OCTR and ECTR are performed in day surgery unit, the ICUR falls in the 'win-win' quadrant, making ECTR both more effective and less costly than OCTR. If the scar tenderness probability is decreased in the ECTR group in a second one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICUR decreases to $100,621.91/QALY gained, providing evidence to reject ECTR. If the reflex sympathetic dystrophy probability is increased in the ECTR group in a third one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICUR increases to $202,657.88/QALY gained, providing strong evidence to reject ECTR.

CONCLUSIONS

There is still uncertainty associated with the costs and effectiveness of ECTR and OCTR. To obtain a definitive answer as to whether the ECTR is more effective than the OCTR, it is necessary to perform a large, randomized, controlled trial in which the utilities and resource use are measured prospectively.

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.

A survey regarding physician recommendations regarding return to work

PURPOSE

Returning patients to work may be influenced by subjective factors and physician bias. The purpose of this study was to determine whether factors such as complaints of pain and patient motivation influence physicians' recommendations regarding return to work or activity.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-five members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand completed an online survey describing a 25-year-old patient with surgically treated diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna. Physicians were asked whether the patient could be returned to work in 4 distinct scenarios varying with occupation, time since injury, radiographic union, patient motivation, and pain.

RESULTS

Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that all 5 predictor variables were highly significant predictors of return to work. Pain and diminished motivation were associated with a significantly lower probability of return to work.

CONCLUSIONS

Although in the scenario depicted, objective factors such as radiographic union and job demands are the major determinants of physician clearance to return to work, physicians are also influenced by patient motivation and complaints of pain.

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.

Repetitive strain injury

Repetitive strain injury remains a controversial topic. The term repetitive strain injury includes specific disorders such as carpal tunnel syndrome, cubital tunnel syndrome, Guyon canal syndrome, lateral epicondylitis, and tendonitis of the wrist or hand. The diagnosis is usually made on the basis of history and clinical examination. Large high-quality studies using newer imaging techniques, such as MRI and ultrasonography are few. Consequently, the role of such imaging in diagnosis of upper limb disorders remains unclear. In many cases, no specific diagnosis can be established and complaints are labelled as non-specific. Little is known about the effectiveness of treatment options for upper limb disorders. Strong evidence for any intervention is scarce and the effect, if any, is mainly short-term pain relief. Exercise is beneficial for non-specific upper limb disorders. Immobilising hand braces and open carpal tunnel surgery release are beneficial for carpal tunnel syndrome, and topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroid injections are helpful for lateral epicondylitis. Exercise is probably beneficial for neck pain, as are corticosteroid injections and exercise for shoulder pain. Although upper limb disorders occur frequently in the working population, most trials have not exclusively included a working population or assessed effects on work-related outcomes. Further high-quality trials should aim to include sufficient sample sizes, working populations, and work-related outcomes.

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.

Intra-individual comparison between openand 2-portal endoscopic release in clinically matched bilateral carpal syndrome

Based upon bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) we undertook a prospective randomised intra-individual comparison between open (OR) and 2-portal endoscopic release (2-PER) to establish if there is any demonstrable advantage in undertaking either technique in a 1 year follow-up. Ten patients with bilateral CTS were enrolled in this study and underwent a 2-PER on the one and an OR with two minimised incisions on the contralateral hand. Both hands were examined pre- and postoperatively after 2, 4, 6 and 12 weeks and after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Preoperatively both hands revealed statistically no significant differences in all the parameters recorded. Comparing both techniques no significant differences could be detected in the follow-up period. Nevertheless, both techniques showed significant improvements in the severity of symptoms and pain, in sensory nerve testing and in electro-diagnostic parameters, when comparing pre- with postoperative data after 1 year. The endoscopic approach revealed no distinct advantages over the open technique not only in the late but also in the early postoperative follow-up period when performing intra-individual comparison. Considering the higher complication rate and costs when performing 2-PER the OR with two minimised incisions seems to be a good alternative in order to keep the recovery period as short as possible.

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.

[Factual surgery or surgery founded on facts]

In the late 90s, teachers at McMaster's university (Canada) decided to export in clinical practice a teaching concept they had developed which included, among other concepts, a critical analysis of the medical literature. "Evidence-Based Medicine" (EBM) has since been adopted by many medical specialities or physicians as a reference in their practice of medicine. However, evidence-based medicine in its definition had three legs. Critical analysis of medical literature is the most known. The analysis is based on methodological principles that have been developed by statisticians and epidemiologists, principles which are not very familiar to surgeons. The other two legs are less known, but are important. The patient is still in the very middle of the EBM's principles. It is for him, the patient with his demands, that the physician must find a solution that may be not available in the literature. The surgeon, the third leg of the system, must be involved; he must listen to the patient, understand his particular demands, and find, for him the best answers to the question asked by the patient. It is the surgeon's responsibility to be the interface between science and one individual patient. Evidence-based medicine is a new model of the relationship between patients and physicians.

A Systematic Review of Reviews Comparing the Effectiveness of Endoscopic and Open Carpal Tunnel Decompression

Controversy persists regarding the benefit of endoscopic carpal tunnel release compared with open carpal tunnel release for pain, numbness, strength, return to work and function, scar tenderness, and complications. For surgeons, a recommended first source of information on treatment effectiveness is a review of high-methodologic-quality articles. This review of reviews was undertaken to answer this clinical question regarding these outcomes. Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and HealthSTAR databases were searched using the key words "endoscopic carpal tunnel," with limits "review or overview" and dates from 1989 to present. Five key journals were hand-searched. Any review with a reference to at least one randomized controlled trial that compared endoscopic carpal tunnel release to open carpal tunnel release was to be included. Two reviewers independently scanned titles and abstracts for potential relevance. Selection as relevant was confirmed through a review of full texts. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus. The selected reviews were assessed for methodologic quality on the basis of the scale of Hoving et al. Of 48 articles initially identified, seven pertinent reviews were selected. Of these seven, three reviews of high methodologic quality concurred that there is no difference between the two techniques in symptom relief and that the evidence is conflicting for return to work and function. The risk of permanent median nerve injury does not differ between the techniques. The reviews indicated that the endoscopic carpal tunnel release technique is worse in terms of reversible nerve injury but superior in terms of grip strength and scar tenderness, at least in short-term follow-up. Several trials have not been incorporated in these reviews and statistical pooling has not been conducted. Further systematic review with meta-analysis may permit more definitive conclusions about the relative effectiveness of these two techniques, particularly with regard to return to work and function.

Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

This study compared the outcomes in patients assigned to either endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) or traditional open carpal tunnel release (OCTR).

METHODS

An unbalanced randomized clinical trial (91 endoscopic, 32 open) was conducted. Short-term and long-term outcomes were evaluated by a blinded assessor. The primary outcome measures were symptom severity measured on a self-report scale and nerve/vascular complications. Secondary outcomes included the McGill pain questionnaire, grip strength, pinch strength, sensory threshold (NK PSSD device, NK Biotechnical Corp, Minneapolis, MN), and time to return to work.

RESULTS

Both groups improved on all outcomes. No differences were observed in primary outcomes between the groups at either baseline or follow-up at 1 week, 6 weeks, or 12 weeks after surgery. No significant complications occurred in either group. Grip strength and pain were significantly better at 1 and 6 weeks in the endoscopic group although differences dissipated by 12 weeks. No significant differences occurred in other secondary outcomes. Long-term satisfaction was lower in the endoscopic group, attributable to a 5% rate of re-operation. Lower rates of endoscopic release have occurred at our center once these results were available to surgeons and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

No substantive difference in benefit was shown for these 2 methods of carpal tunnel release.

Postoperative nerve conduction changes after open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release

OBJECTIVE

To assess the improvement of motor distal latency (MDL), sensory nerve conduction velocity (SCV) of the median nerve and the amplitudes of compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) in patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome subjected to surgical treatment according to the open carpal tunnel release method and the endoscopic carpal tunnel release.

METHODS

Sixty-six hands of sixty-six patients were divided into two groups: the ECTR group and the OCTR group. The patients were evaluated preoperatively, and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Although no statistically significant difference of the recovery of MDL and the amplitude of CMAP and SNAP was detected between the two groups at any time point during follow-up, one patient in the ECTR group in whom the operation had been converted to OCTR, showed delay of MDL and decrease in the amplitude of CMAP.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a risk of nerve damage in patients undergoing ECTR. Although statistical analysis suggests that nerve conduction improves by about the same degree 12 months after ECTR or OCTR, slightly faster improvement after OCTR cannot be excluded.

Systematic review of randomized clinical trials of surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common disorder for which several surgical treatment options are available. However, there is no consensus on the most effective method of treatment. The object of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy of the various surgical techniques in relieving the symptoms of CTS and promoting return to work and/or activities of daily living.

METHODS

Computer-aided searches of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were conducted, together with reference checking. A rating system, based on the number of studies and their methodological quality and findings, was used to determine the strength of the available evidence for the efficacy of the treatment.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review. None of the alternatives to standard open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) seems to offer better relief of symptoms. There is conflicting evidence about whether endoscopic carpal tunnel release results in earlier return to work and/or activities of daily living.

CONCLUSION

Standard OCTR is still the preferred method of treatment for CTS. It is just as effective as the alternatives, but is technically less demanding, so incurs a lower risk of complications and of added costs.

[Neurolysis of the median nerve in the carpal canal using a mini-invasive approach. Apropos of a prospective series of 138 cases]

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the results of a prospective study of 138 cases with carpal tunnel syndrome operated on by a percutaneous technique.

METHOD

One hundred and twenty-nine patients (108 women and 21 men, with a mean age of 49.9 years) underwent preoperative assessment via a questionnaire and a clinical examination (the Weber test, buckle test, Kapandji test, Tinel test, Phalen test, Vainio test and grip force assessment). The surgical technique was singularised by the insertion of a probe cannula in the carpal tunnel so that the blade could be guided during annular ligament section.

RESULTS

The results were assessed at one, three and six months follow-up: 98.5% very good and good results were obtained (Kelly criteria); two patients presented with an algodystrophic syndrome. No vascular, tendinous or neurological complications were noted, and the procedure was in no instance switched to an open technique.

DISCUSSION

The main advantages of this technique are a rapid recuperation of hand function, with an average of 22.6 days off work, a low complication rate, and simple equipment.

Longitudinal Median Nerve Conduction Studies After Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release

Forty hands of 36 patients who had undergone endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR), utilising Chow's two-portal technique after being diagnosed with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome, were subjected to longitudinal median nerve conduction studies. The distal motor latency (DML) was examined pre-operatively on all the hands, which were re-examined at the post-operative 1st, 3rd, 6th and 12th months. Rapid improvement of DML was observed post-operatively in the first three months. These improvements patterns are not much different from those after open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) reported in the literatures. We consider that the data reported herein can be used as standards of DML course after ECTR.

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a prospective analysis of factors associated with unsatisfactory results

The first 100 consecutive cases of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) performed by the author were studied prospectively during 6 to 24 months follow-up. Various preoperative and postoperative factors were subjected to statistical analysis to determine possible associations with unsatisfactory results. Overall, 92% of hands had a satisfactory result from ECTR, although not all were rendered symptom-free. There were no significant complications. Preoperative factors associated with an increased likelihood of unsatisfactory results included hands with preoperative weakness, widened two-point discrimination, myofascial pain syndrome or fibromyalgia, involvement in litigation, multiple compressive neuropathies, or the presence of abnormal psychological factors. A trend to less satisfactory results was present in Workers' Compensation cases and patients with normal motor latencies on nerve conduction studies. Multiple postoperative factors correlated with unsatisfactory results.

Does endoscopic carpal tunnel release have a higher rate of complications than open carpal tunnel release? An analysis of published series

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reported rate of complications after endoscopic carpal tunnel release by means of an analysis of 54 publications, reporting a total of 9516 endoscopic and 1203 open releases. Endoscopic release was comparable to open release in the rate of irreversible nerve damage (0.3% and 0.2% respectively) but case reports may indicate a small risk of unacceptable complications with endoscopy, such as transection of the median nerve. Reversible nerve problems were more common after endoscopic release. Tendon lesions were extremely rare (0.03%) and the rate of other complications (reflex sympathetic dystrophy, haematoma, wound problems, etc.) was about the same with endoscopic as with open release.

Two-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release surgery: report of early experience

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release is increasingly performed to treat median nerve entrapment neuropathy at the transverse carpal ligament. Proponents of these procedures claim that there are early postoperative advantages to be gained by the patient in the form of decreased pain and weakness, thus facilitating an earlier return to function. However, serious complications associated with the use of these techniques have been reported, especially during the surgeon's purported initial steep learning curve. A prospective analysis of the authors' first 51 cases using a two-portal endoscopic technique was conducted to determine whether these learning curve complications occurred. The authors did experience a learning curve; however, it was not significant. They encountered no serious complications and patient satisfaction was very high. It is concluded that the procedure is relatively easy to learn and safe to perform.