Outcomes Following Carpal Tunnel Release in Patients Receiving Workers' Compensation: A Systematic Review

Does Revision Carpal Tunnel Release Result in Long-Term Outcomes Equivalent to Single Carpal Tunnel Release? A Matched Case-Control Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to evaluate long-term patient-reported outcomes after revision carpal tunnel release (CTR); compare these outcomes with those of patients who had a single CTR and a comparable age, sex, race, type of initial surgery, and follow-up time; and assess which factors are associated with worse patient-reported outcomes after revision CTR.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively identified 7351 patients who had a single CTR and 113 patients who had a revision CTR for carpal tunnel syndrome between January of 2002 and December of 2015 at five academic urban hospitals. Of these 113 revision CTR cases, 37 patients completed a follow-up questionnaire including the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), the Numerical Rating Scale for Pain Intensity, and satisfaction score. Those who completed the follow-up questionnaire were randomly matched to five controls (patients who had a single CTR) based on age, sex, race, type of initial surgery, and follow-up time. Of these 185 matched controls, 65 completed the follow-up questionnaire.

RESULTS

A linear mixed effects model using matched sets as a random effect showed that patients who had a revision CTR had a higher total BCTQ score, Numerical Rating Scale for Pain Intensity score, and a lower satisfaction score at time of follow-up than patients who had a single CTR. Multivariable linear regression showed that thenar muscle atrophy before the revision surgery was independently associated with more pain after revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patients improve after revision CTR, but generally have more pain, have a higher BCTQ score, and are less satisfied at long-term follow-up compared with patients who had a single CTR.

Workers' Compensation: The Burden on Healthcare Resource Utilization After Foot and Ankle Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to investigate the amount of healthcare resources dedicated to patients with WC after common foot or ankle procedures compared with a procedure-matched control group.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients with WC and without WC undergoing foot and ankle procedures. Measures of healthcare burden included clinical communications, documents, prescriptions, office visits, and days to return to work and clinic discharge.

RESULTS

Collectively, 142 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients with workers' compensation had increased office communication encounters (P < 0.001), processed documents (P < 0.001), medication prescriptions (P < 0.001), number of office visits (P < 0.001), number of days until return to work (P < 0.001), and days until final disposition from clinic (P < 0.001). Patients with workers' compensation were more likely to have postoperative complications (OR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.3; P = 0.04), secondary surgeries (OR 8.2; 95% CI, 2.3 to 29.4; P < 0.001), and new complaints during the perioperative period (OR 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9 to 4.0; P = 0.07) but were less likely to cancel appointments (OR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.86; P = 0.02).

DISCUSSION

When undergoing common foot and ankle orthopaedic procedures, patients with WC demonstrated increased healthcare utilization of resources. This included more office staff work burden dedicated to patients with WC for longer amounts of time, effectively doubling the effort of a non-WC cohort.

Involvement in a Personal Injury Claim Is Associated With More Pain and Delayed Return to Work After Elective Nonsurgical or Surgical Treatment for Hand or Wrist Disorders: A Propensity Score-matched Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

A small proportion of patients treated for a hand or wrist condition are also involved in a personal injury claim that may or may not be related to the reason for seeking treatment. There are already indications that patients involved in a personal injury claim have more severe symptoms preoperatively and worse surgical outcomes. However, for nonsurgical treatment, it is unknown whether involvement in a personal injury claim affects treatment outcomes. Similarly, it is unknown whether treatment invasiveness affects the association between involvement in a personal injury claim and the outcomes of nonsurgical treatment. Finally, most studies did not take preoperative differences into account.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Do patients with a claim have more pain during loading, less function, and longer time to return to work after nonsurgical treatment than matched patients without a personal injury claim? (2) Do patients with a personal injury claim have more pain, less function, and longer time to return to work after minor surgery than matched patients without a personal injury claim? (3) Do patients with a personal injury claim have more pain, less function, and longer time to return to work after major surgery than matched patients without a personal injury claim?

METHODS

We used data from a longitudinally maintained database of patients treated for hand or wrist disorders in the Netherlands between December 2012 and May 2020. During the study period, 35,749 patients for whom involvement in a personal injury claim was known were treated nonsurgically or surgically for hand or wrist disorders. All patients were invited to complete the VAS (scores range from 0 to 100) for pain and hand function before treatment and at follow-up. We excluded patients who did not complete the VAS on pain and hand function before treatment and those who received a rare treatment, which we defined as fewer than 20 occurrences in our dataset, resulting in 29,101 patients who were eligible for evaluation in this study. Employed patients (66% [19,134 of 29,101]) were also asked to complete a questionnaire regarding return to work. We distinguished among nonsurgical treatment (follow-up at 3 months), minor surgery (such as trigger finger release, with follow-up of 3 months), and major surgery (such as trapeziectomy, with follow-up at 12 months). The mean age was 53 ± 15 years, 64% (18,695 of 29,101) were women, and 2% (651 of 29,101) of all patients were involved in a personal injury claim. For each outcome and treatment type, patients with a personal injury claim were matched to similar patients without a personal injury claim using 1:2 propensity score matching to account for differences in patient characteristics and baseline pain and hand function. For nonsurgical treatment VAS analysis, there were 115 personal injury claim patients and 230 matched control patients, and for return to work analysis, there were 83 claim and 166 control patients. For minor surgery VAS analysis, there were 172 personal injury claim patients and 344 matched control patients, and for return to work analysis, there were 108 claim and 216 control patients. For major surgery VAS analysis, there were 129 personal injury claim patients and 258 matched control patients, and for return to work analysis, there were 117 claim and 234 control patients.

RESULTS

For patients treated nonsurgically, those with a claim had more pain during load at 3 months than matched patients without a personal injury claim (49 ± 30 versus 39 ± 30, adjusted mean difference 9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 15]; p = 0.008), but there was no difference in hand function (61 ± 27 versus 66 ± 28, adjusted mean difference -5 [95% CI -11 to 1]; p = 0.11). Each week, patients with a personal injury claim had a 39% lower probability of returning to work than patients without a claim (HR 0.61 [95% CI 0.45 to 0.84]; p = 0.002). For patients with an injury claim at 3 months after minor surgery, there was more pain (44 ± 30 versus 34 ± 29, adjusted mean difference 10 [95% CI 5 to 15]; p < 0.001), lower function (60 ± 28 versus 69 ± 28, adjusted mean difference -9 [95% CI -14 to -4]; p = 0.001), and 32% lower probability of returning to work each week (HR 0.68 [95% CI 0.52 to 0.89]; p = 0.005). For patients with an injury claim at 1 year after major surgery, there was more pain (36 ± 29 versus 27 ± 27, adjusted mean difference 9 [95% CI 4 to 15]; p = 0.002), worse hand function (66 ± 28 versus 76 ± 26, adjusted mean difference -9 [95% CI -15 to -4]; p = 0.001), and a 45% lower probability of returning to work each week (HR 0.55 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.73]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Personal injury claim involvement was associated with more posttreatment pain and a longer time to return to work for patients treated for hand or wrist disorders, regardless of treatment invasiveness. Patients with a personal injury claim who underwent surgery also rated their postoperative hand function as worse than similar patients who did not have a claim. Depending on treatment invasiveness, only 42% to 55% of the personal injury claim patients experienced a clinically relevant improvement in pain. We recommend that clinicians extensively discuss the expected treatment outcomes and the low probability of a clinically relevant improvement in pain with their personal injury claim patients and that they broach the possibility of postponing treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

Utilization of Diagnostic Testing for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Survey of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand

PURPOSE

In 2016, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) changed the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome, relaxing the recommendation for electrodiagnostic studies (EDS) prior to offering surgery. However, it is unknown how the updated guidelines changed the practice patterns of hand surgeons.

METHODS

A web-based multiple-choice survey was sent to the members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. We assessed the current diagnostic practice patterns of hand surgeons. The survey was pretested using expert review with content and survey methodology experts and cognitively tested to ensure readability and understandability.

RESULTS

The final cohort consisted of 770 hand surgeons. Approximately 26% of respondents required EDS prior to seeing a patient in consultation, and 56% of members routinely ordered EDS after evaluating a patient with carpal tunnel syndrome if testing was not performed prior to evaluation. The top reasons for obtaining EDS were to provide additional information for unclear diagnoses (97% selected), for patients with worker's compensation (82% selected), for grading the severity (73% selected), and to provide a baseline examination in the event of persistent symptoms (72% selected). However, only 38% of respondents believed that the current AAOS CPGs were appropriate, and 43% of respondents did not know what the guidelines recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the change in AAOS CPGs, EDS continues to be ubiquitously used for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of hand surgeons are unaware of the recommendations for EDS within the AAOS CPGs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These findings highlight the importance of explicitly defining which patients and which clinical scenarios would benefit from additional diagnostic testing and identifying strategies for more widespread dissemination of guidelines.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN AND SETTING

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

REGISTRATION NUMBER IN PROSPERO

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

Workers' Compensation Status Confers a Greater Number of Postoperative Visits After Common Upper Extremity Surgeries

Background

The impact of Workers’ Compensation (WC) status on postoperative healthcare utilization in hand and wrist surgery clinical practice is presently unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the number of postoperative visits in WC to non-WC patients after common upper extremity surgical procedures.

Methodology

All patients who underwent one of four common surgical procedures (carpal tunnel release, De Quervain’s release, cubital tunnel release, and trigger finger release) between 2016 and 2019 were identified. A total of 64 surgeries billed under WC were randomly selected and matched 1:1 to surgeries billed outside of WC based on the primary CPT code.

Results

The most common procedure was carpal tunnel release (42 patients), followed by trigger finger release (30 patients), cubital tunnel release (28 patients), and De Quervain’s release (16 patients). The average number of postoperative visits was 2.3 (median = 2, range: 1-9) and was significantly higher in the WC group (mean/median = 3.0/3 versus 1.5/1, p < 0.001). Within the 90-day global postoperative billing period, the mean number of visits was 2.2 (median = 2, range: 1-4) in the WC group and 1.4 (median = 1, range: 1-3) in the non-WC group (p < 0.001). The average time to clinical discharge in the WC group was 101 days (range: 10-446 days), and in the non-WC group was 40 days (range: 7-474 days) (p < 0.001). Five patients (7.8%) in the WC group and four patients (6.3%) in the non-WC group were seen for unplanned visits after clinical discharge.

Conclusions

WC status conferred more postoperative visits after common upper extremity surgical procedures, both within and beyond the global billing period. Further investigation and targeted strategies are required to address the observed increase in healthcare utilization.

Sickness absence after carpal tunnel release: a multicentre prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To describe when patients return to different types of work after elective carpal tunnel release (CTR) surgery and identify the factors associated with the duration of sickness absence.

DESIGN

Multicentre prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Participants were recruited preoperatively from 16 UK centres and clinical, occupational and demographic information were collected. Participants completed a weekly diary and questionnaires at four and 12 weeks postoperatively.

OUTCOMES

The main outcome was duration of work absence from date of surgery to date of first return to work.

RESULTS

254 participants were enrolled in the study and 201 provided the follow-up data. Median duration of sickness absence was 20 days (range 1-99). Earlier return to work was associated with having surgery in primary care and a self-reported work role involving more than 4 hours of daily computer use. Being female and entitlement to more than a month of paid sick leave were both associated with longer work absences. The duration of work absence was strongly associated with the expected duration of leave, as reported by participants before surgery. Earlier return to work was not associated with poorer clinical outcomes reported 12 weeks after CTR.

CONCLUSIONS

There was wide variation in the duration of work absence after CTR across all occupational categories. A combination of occupational, demographic and clinical factors was associated with the duration of work absence, illustrating the complexity of return to work decision making. However, preoperative expectations were strongly associated with the actual duration of leave. We found no evidence that earlier return to work was harmful. Clear, consistent advice from clinicians preoperatively setting expectations of a prompt return to work could reduce unnecessary sickness absence after CTR. To enable this, clinicians need evidence-informed guidance about appropriate timescales for the safe return to different types of work.

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.