Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release: One-Portal Technique

Prospective evaluation of a novel device for ultrasound-guided percutaneous treatment of carpal tunnel and trigger finger disease. Efficacy and safety of sono-instruments®

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous release procedures under sonography using Sono-Instruments® in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and trigger finger (TF).

METHODS

Prospective study involving 30 patients, divided into two groups (15 CTS, and 15 TF). The primary outcomes were surgical performance-related outcomes (visibility, ease of use, satisfaction, duration) using Sono-Instruments® and patient-related outcomes (pain, activity limitations, time to return to work, functional scores). Secondary outcomes included complications. Patients were followed for two months post-operatively.

RESULTS

In the CTS group, the average age of the patients was 58.7 years. The percutaneous release of the transverse carpal ligament was effectively completed in all cases, with excellent device performance and no adverse events. At one week, all patients could wash their hands, 80% could perform activities of daily living, and 80% of those working had returned to their activities. At two months, all patients had resumed all activities. Pillar pain was still present in 53.3%. In the TF group, the patients had an average age of 57.9 years. The percutaneous release of the A1 annular pulley was successful in all cases, with excellent device performance and no adverse events. At one week, all patients could wash their hands, 93.3% could do all activities of daily living, and 75% of those working were back to their professional activities. At two months, all patients were back to all activities of daily living and work. The DASH score was significantly improved at two months, compared to preoperative, for both groups (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous sono-guided release using Sono-Instruments® is safe and efficient, and associated with quick functional recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Carpal Tunnel Release With Open, Endoscopic, and Ultrasound Guidance Techniques From a Societal Perspective

Purpose

The objective of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR), and carpal tunnel release with ultrasound (CTR-US) guidance. The aim of this study was to determine whether one of the three approaches was dominant from a societal perspective in terms of cost-utility, in order to help inform policy and treatment decision making going forward.

Methods

This study was performed using a decision tree model, with three potential treatment decisions (OCTR, ECTR, and CTR-US). A cost-utility analysis was performed, using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as per previous literature.

Results

The total payer episode costs for OCTR, ECTR, and CTR-US were $4,324, $4,978, and $3,249, respectively. The cost of time off work for each procedure was $4,376.14, $3,650.24, and $622.20, respectively. The overall QALYs gained from each procedure were 0.42, 0.42, and 0.43, respectively (the maximum possible being 0.5 for a 6-month period). Compared with OCTR, ECTR and CTR-US were both less costly from a societal perspective (-$71.90 and -$4,828.94, respectively) and associated with greater QALYs gained (+0.0004 and +0.0143, respectively).

Conclusions

Overall, the key finding of this study is that, from a societal perspective, CTR-US is less costly and provides greater QALY improvement when compared with OCTR and ECTR, and thus, CTR-US is considered a dominant intervention over both OCTR and ECTR.

Type of study/level of evidence

Economic and decision analysis; IIb.

A Comparison of Mini Open Transverse Incision and Longitudinal Incision for the Release of Moderate and Severe Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common condition seen in daily clinical practice. Multiple minimally invasive techniques have emerged in the last decades for median nerve decompression. However, many research are needed to study the outcome on the patients and their safety profile.

METHODS

We will compare group A that includes patients operated on using the minimally invasive transverse incision (number of patients = n = 221, females 76.7% and males 22.8%) versus group B that includes patients operated on using the longitudinal incision (n = 194, female 70.1% and male 29.9%) in term of clinical satisfaction and safety. The mean age of group A is 58.1±5.1 and that of group B is 58.8±4.8. The male and female distribution in both groups and the mean age were both similar with no statistically significant difference for the age (p = 0.79) or the gender distribution (p = 0.1). Data collected prospectively at regular intervals in time (preoperatively and at one month, three months, and six months post-carpal tunnel release (CTR)) between January 2006 and December 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients' clinical findings, grip strength measurement using a hand dynamometer, and postoperative satisfaction measured using the BCTQ (Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire) scoring system were recorded and analyzed for each technique.

RESULTS

A total of 415 patients were included in our study. All patients included had moderate to severe median nerve compression documented by nerve-conducted studies with positive Tinel's and Phalen's signs. Baseline demographics between group A (CTR through a longitudinal palmar mini-incision) and group B (CTR with a mini-transverse incision at the palmar crease) didn't show a statistically significant difference. Both groups showed improved grip strength and BCTQ scores at the post-operative follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Median nerve decompression using both types of incisions has resulted in the same functional outcomes and patient satisfaction.