Patient controlled regional analgesia after carpal tunnel release: a double-blind study using distal perineural catheters

Outcome Metrics in the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the metrics used to assess outcomes after treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines of level I and II randomized controlled trials of treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE electronic database for studies on treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome from January 2008 to January 2018. A total of 105 studies were included in the final analysis. The metrics used to assess outcomes in each studies were collected, compared, and described.

RESULTS

Nearly all the studies used a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess outcomes (94%). The most common PROMs used were the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (60%) and the Visual Analog Scale for pain (51%). Electrophysiological testing and physical examination were also commonly used to assess outcomes (50% and 46%, respectively). Cost, sleep, and return to activities of daily living were assessed in a minority of studies (1%, 1%, and 5%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Successful treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome is commonly defined based on a PROM, highlighting recent efforts to measure outcomes from the patient's perspective. Other patient-centered metrics such as return to work and sleep quality, however, were rarely reported, whereas objective measures such as nerve conduction studies were prevalent. Further work is needed to determine patients' preferred method of measuring outcomes after treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome to inform goal-directed decision-making and treatment.

Rehabilitation following carpal tunnel release

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Recent management advances in acute postoperative pain

INTRODUCTION

Acute postoperative pain remains a major problem, with both undertreatment and overtreatment leading to serious consequences, including increased risk of persistent postoperative pain, impaired rehabilitation, increased length of stay and/or hospital readmission, and adverse events related to excessive analgesic use, such as oversedation. New analgesic medications and techniques have been introduced that target the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods to better manage acute postoperative pain, with improvements in analgesic efficacy and safety over more traditional pain management approaches. This review provides an overview of these new analgesic medications and techniques. Specific topics that are discussed include the use of preoperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anxiolytics, and anticonvulsants; intraoperative approaches such as neuraxial analgesia, continuous local anesthetic wound infusion, transversus abdominis plane block, extended-release epidural morphine, intravenous acetaminophen, and intravenous ketamine; and postoperative use of intravenous ibuprofen, new opioids (eg, tapentadol) or opioid formulations (morphine-oxycodone), and patient-controlled analgesia.

CONCLUSION

New, targeted, analgesic medications and techniques may provide a safer and more effective approach to the management of acute postoperative pain than traditional approaches such as postoperative oral analgesics.

Rehabilitation following carpal tunnel release

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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