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

Registry cost description of carpal tunnel release in Finland in 2011-2015

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we evaluated the amount of public funds spent on the operative treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in Finland in 2011-2015.

DESIGN

A registry-based cost burden study.

SETTING

The data were collected in primary and secondary care in both private and public hospitals, covering the whole population of Finland.

PARTICIPANTS

We collected the total number of patients with new CTS diagnoses and the total number of patients undergoing surgery from the Care Register for Health Care, Finland's national register.

INTERVENTIONS

Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR).

OUTCOME MEASURES

We collected the costs of the OCTR procedure from diagnosis-related group prices. The Social Insurance Institution of Finland provided the total amount of euros reimbursed for sick leaves. We then combined the average amount of reimbursed sick leave with our estimated cost of the treatment chain to approximate the average cost per patient.

RESULTS

The average amount of public funds used for diagnosing and surgically treating new CTS in 2011-2015 in Finland, including reimbursements for sick leaves, was €2759 per patient in 2015 currency. The average direct procedure cost was €1020. We found no clear trend in total cost per patient, but the proportion of surgically treated patients rose from 63.14% to 73.09%. The total annual cost of these treatments was between €18 128 420 and €22 569 973.

CONCLUSIONS

The average amount of public funds used to surgically treat one patient with new CTS in 2011-2015 in Finland was €2759, making the total annual burden €20.7 million.

Comparison of early clinical outcome in carpal tunnel release - mini-open technique with palmar incision vs. endoscopic technique with wrist crease incision

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine two techniques for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, mini-Open Carpal Tunnel Release (mini-OCTR) and Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release (ECTR), to compare their therapeutic efficacy.

METHODS

Sixteen patients who underwent mini-OCTR in palmar incision and 17 patients who underwent ECTR in the wrist crease incision were included in the study. All patients presented preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively and were assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH). We also assessed the pain and cosmetic VAS of the entire affected hand or surgical wound, and the patient's satisfaction with the surgery.

RESULTS

In the objective evaluation, both surgical techniques showed improvement at 6 months postoperatively. The DASH score was significantly lower in the ECTR group (average = 3 months: 13.6, 6 months: 11.9) than in the mini-OCTR group (average = 3 months: 27.3, 6 months: 20.6) at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Also, the pain VAS score was significantly lower in the ECTR group (average = 17.1) than in the mini-OCTR group (average = 36.6) at 3 months postoperatively. The cosmetic VAS was significantly lower in the ECTR group (average = 1 month: 15.3, 3 months: 12.2, 6 months: 5.41) than in the mini-OCTR group (average = 1 month: 33.3, 3 months: 31.2, 6 months: 24.8) at all time points postoperatively. Patient satisfaction scores tended to be higher in the ECTR group (average = 3.3) compared to the mini-OCTR group (average = 2.7).

CONCLUSIONS

ECTR in wrist increase incision resulted in better pain and cosmetic recovery in an early postoperative phase compared with mini-OCTR in palmar incision. Our findings suggest that ECTR is an effective technique for patient satisfaction.

Surgical Interventions for the Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Narrative Review

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a severe condition that affects the hand, causing pain, numbness, paresthesia, and autonomic dysfunction caused by increased pressure, damage, and demyelination of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel. The most effective treatment for CTS is carpal tunnel release (CTR) via transverse carpal ligament (TCL) transect. We can apply decompression through endoscopic procedures; standard open techniques and minimally invasive wrist incisions can all be used to accomplish decompression. Superior outcomes have been reported in many studies, including patient satisfaction, symptom relief, improvements in multiple assessment modality results, and fewer complications. Soreness at the incision site, tenderness around the site of ligament release, transitory loss of motor or sensory function, and the need for a repeat operation are all postoperative consequences. There is minimal and low-quality evidence to support the effectiveness of postoperative rehabilitation, such as wrist orthoses, dressings, exercise, and ice therapy, which have benefited patients anecdotally.

Predictive Factors for Converting Endoscopic to Open Carpal Tunnel Release

Introduction: Both open and endoscopic methods of carpal tunnel release are accepted treatments for carpal tunnel syndrome. The objective was to determine the endoscopic to open conversion rate of all carpal tunnel surgeries. We evaluated potential predictive factors for an increased rate of conversion. Methods: The IRB/IRBnet approved (#20210613/1639264) a retrospective chart review of all attempted endoscopic carpal tunnel surgeries performed from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2021. Charts were reviewed for procedure, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), electromyograph (EMG) reading, wrist arthritis on x-ray, preoperative steroid injections, trainee as surgeon, diabetes, hand dominance, and operated side. Conversion rate was noted. A chi-square test using a P-value of <0.05 was used to determine the statistical significance of the patients' age, sex, BMI, EMG severity, the presence of wrist arthritis, preoperative steroid injections, resident as surgeon, diabetic status, and operated hand dominance as predictive factors for conversion. Results: The plastic surgery service attempted 1053 endoscopic carpal tunnel releases using the Chow dual port technique over a 9-year period. Forty-five cases converted to an open release. Median age (P = 0.54), sex (P = 0.43), median BMI (P = 0.76), EMG severity (P = 0.20), wrist arthritis (P = 1.0), preoperative steroid injections (P = 0.65), resident surgeon (P = 0.53), diabetes (P = 0.50), and operated hand dominance (P = 0.36) were not statistically significant predictive risk factors. Nineteen of 45 converted cases had a future successful contralateral endoscopic release. Conclusion: Our study found a 4.27% endoscopic to open conversion rate. No identifiable risk factors could predict conversion. Prior conversion does not determine a future contralateral conversion.

Revision Carpal Tunnel Release Following Endoscopic Compared With Open Decompression

Importance

Carpal tunnel release (CTR) technique may influence the likelihood of revision surgery. Prior studies of revision CTR following endoscopic CTR (ECTR) compared with open CTR (OCTR) have been limited by sample size and duration of follow-up.

Objective

To estimate the incidence of revision CTR following ECTR compared with OCTR in a national cohort.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data from the US Veterans Health Administration. Participants included all adults (age ≥18 years) undergoing at least 1 outpatient CTR from October 1, 1999, to May 20, 2021. Data were analyzed from May 21, 2021, to November 27, 2023.

Exposure

Index CTR technique.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to revision CTR, defined as repeat ipsilateral CTR during the study period. Secondary outcomes were indications for revision, findings during revision, and additional procedures performed during revision.

Results

Among 134 851 wrists from 103 455 patients (92 510 [89.4%] male; median [IQR] age, 62 [53-70] years) undergoing at least 1 CTR, 1809 wrists underwent at least 1 revision at a median (IQR) of 2.5 (1.0-3.8) years. In competing-risks analysis, the cumulative incidence of revision was 1.06% (95% CI, 0.99%-1.12%) at 5 years and 1.59% (95% CI, 1.51%-1.67%) at 10 years. ECTR was associated with increased hazard of revision CTR compared with OCTR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.34-1.81; P < .001). The risk difference for revision CTR associated with ECTR compared with OCTR was 0.57% (95% CI, 0.31%-0.84%) at 5 years (number needed to harm, 176) and 0.72% (95% CI, 0.36%-1.07%) at 10 years (number needed to harm, 139). Regardless of index CTR technique, the most common indication for revision was symptom recurrence (1062 wrists [58.7%]). A reconstituted transverse carpal ligament (TCL) was more common after ECTR compared with OCTR, whereas scarring of the overlying tissues and of the median nerve itself were more common following OCTR. Incomplete transverse-carpal-ligament release was observed in 251 of the wrists undergoing revision CTR (13.94%) and was more common among revisions following ECTR (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.11-2.37; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of revision CTR in the Veterans Health Administration, ECTR was associated with increased risk of revision compared with OCTR, but the absolute risk was low regardless of technique. Intraoperative findings at revision varied significantly according to index CTR technique.

The significance of wrist immobilization for endoscopic carpal tunnel release

Background

Over the years, endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) has gained significant interest as an alternative to surgery. However, no consensus has been reached on the necessity of postoperative wrist immobilization. This study aims to compare the outcomes of wrist immobilization for a period of 2 weeks to immediate wrist mobilization after ECTR.

Methods

A total of 24 patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome undergoing dual-portal ECTR from May 2020 to Feb 2022 were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups postoperatively. In one group, patients wore a wrist splint for 2 weeks. In another group, wrist mobilization was allowed immediately after surgery. The two-point discrimination test (2PD test); the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test (SWM test); the occurrence of pillar pain, digital and wrist range of motion (ROM); grip and pinch strength; the visual analog score (VAS), the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) score; the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score; and complications were evaluated at 2 weeks and 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after the surgery.

Results

All 24 subjects finished this study with no dropouts. During the early follow-up, patients with wrist immobilization demonstrated lower VAS scores, lower occurrence of pillar pain, and higher grip and pinch strength compared with the immediate mobilization group. No significant difference was obtained between these two groups in terms of the 2PD test, the SWM test, digital and wrist ROM, BCTQ, and the DASH score. In total, two patients without splints reported transient scar discomfort. No one complained of neurapraxia, injury of the flexor tendon, median nerve, and major artery. At the final follow-up, no significant difference was found in any parameters between both groups. The local scar discomfort mentioned above disappeared and left no serious sequela.

Conclusion

Wrist immobilization during the early postoperative period demonstrated significant pain alleviation along with stronger grip and pinch strength. However, wrist immobilization yielded no obvious superiority regarding clinical outcomes at the final follow-up.

[Differential therapeutic Approaches in Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome]

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is one of the most common compression neuropathies. The therapeutic concept should be tailored to each patient individually, with initial non-surgical treatment being the standard of care for early CTS. Primary surgical intervention should be considered in more advanced diseases stages, in case of concomitant pathologies (including space-occupying lesions, complex regional pain syndrome or diabetic neuropathy), if non-surgical strategies have failed or in pregnancy-related CTS. This work aims to discuss common surgical approaches, their clinical application as well as benefits and disadvantages in a pragmatic style. Further, we highlight surgical strategies to address recurrent CTS following failed primary surgery. In view of the recently updated S3 guidelines "Diagnosis and Therapy of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome", this topic is timely and relevant for hand and nerve surgeons.