Dataset Information

Endoscopic and Open Release Similarly Safe for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.To evaluate whether there is evidence supporting a higher risk after ECTR in comparison to the conventional open release.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.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.I.

SUBMITTER: Vasiliadis HS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4682940 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Endoscopic and Open Release Similarly Safe for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Vasiliadis Haris S HS Nikolakopoulou Adriani A Shrier Ian I Lunn Michael P MP Brassington Ruth R Scholten Rob J P RJ Salanti Georgia G

PloS one 20151216 12

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate whether there is evidence supporting a higher risk after ECTR in comparison to the conventional open release ...[more]

PMID: 26674211

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome is the most common upper-extremity nerve compression syndrome. Over 500,000 carpal tunnel release (CTR) procedures are performed in the U.S. yearly. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic CTR (ECTR) versus open CTR (OCTR) using data from published meta-analyses comparing outcomes for ECTR and OCTR.MethodsWe developed a Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of OCTR versus ECTR for patients undergoing unilateral CTR in an office setting under local anesthesia and in an operating-room (OR) setting under monitored anesthesia care. The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We modeled societal (modeled with a 50-year-old patient) and Medicare payer (modeled with a 65-year-old patient) perspectives, adopting a lifetime time horizon. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs).ResultsECTR resulted in 0.00141 additional QALY compared with OCTR. From a societal perspective, assuming 8.21 fewer days of work missed after ECTR than after OCTR, ECTR cost less across all procedure settings. The results are sensitive to the number of days of work missed following surgery. From a payer perspective, ECTR in the OR (ECTROR) cost $1,872 more than OCTR in the office (OCTRoffice), for an ICER of approximately $1,332,000/QALY. The ECTROR cost $654 more than the OCTROR, for an ICER of $464,000/QALY. The ECTRoffice cost $107 more than the OCTRoffice, for an ICER of $76,000/QALY. From a payer perspective, for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, OCTRoffice was preferred over ECTROR in 77% of the PSA iterations. From a societal perspective, ECTROR was preferred over OCTRoffice in 61% of the PSA iterations.ConclusionsFrom a societal perspective, ECTR is associated with lower costs as a result of an earlier return to work and leads to higher QALYs. Additional research on return to work is needed to confirm these findings on the basis of contemporary return-to-work practices. From a payer perspective, ECTR is more expensive and is cost-effective only if performed in an office setting under local anesthesia.Level of evidenceEconomic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:ImportanceCarpal 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.ObjectiveTo estimate the incidence of revision CTR following ECTR compared with OCTR in a national cohort.Design, setting, and participantsThis 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.ExposureIndex CTR technique.Main outcomes and measuresThe 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.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceIn 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.

Project description:PurposeThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) using best-evidence synthesis methods.MethodsA systematic search of multiple databases was conducted for prospective contemporary studies published between January 2013 and January 2023 with at least 50 ECTR cases. Outcomes included the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (Q-DASH) measured on a 0-100 scale, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) and Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS) on a 1-5 scale, pain visual analog scale on a 0-10 scale, conversion to open carpal tunnel release (CTR), complications, and reoperations. Outcomes were analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Metaregression was used to determine the association of patient- and study-level factors with ECTR outcomes.ResultsA total of 17 studies with 1,632 patients treated with ECTR were included. Median follow-up durations ranged from 4 to 7 months depending on the outcome. Statistically significant and clinically important improvements were noted after ECTR for Q-DASH, BCTQ-SSS, BCTQ-FSS, and pain visual analog scale scores, with mean differences from baseline of -28.8, -1.8, -1.5, and -5.1, respectively (P < .001 for all). In metaregression, the strongest predictor of improvement in Q-DASH, BCTQ-SSS, and BCTQ-FSS was a greater preoperative score for that variable (all P ≤ .005), indicating that patients with worse symptoms improved the most. The risks of conversion to open CTR, complications, and revision CTR were 0.7%, 0.7%, and 0.5%, respectively.ConclusionsIn a best-evidence synthesis of contemporary studies, ECTR resulted in significant improvements in function and pain, with a low risk of conversion to open surgery, complications, and reoperations over short-term follow-up.Clinical relevancePatients treated with ECTR can expect generally favorable clinical outcomes over the short term. However, long-term outcomes after ECTR are not well characterized.

Project description: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.

Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of mini-open carpal tunnel release (mOCTR) using best-evidence synthesis methods.MethodsWe systematically searched for prospective studies published from January 2013 to July 2023 that reported outcomes from a minimum of 50 mOCTR cases. The outcomes included Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) and Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS), pain visual analog scale (VAS), complication rate, and reoperation rate. Data analysis was performed using a random-effects meta-analysis, with metaregression to identify the associations between patient- and study-level factors with surgical outcomes.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 23 studies with 2,303 patients followed for median durations ranging from 6 to 12 months depending on the outcome. Mini-open carpal tunnel release resulted in statistically significant and clinically important improvements in Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (mean difference = -25.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -36.4 to -14.5; P < .001), BCTQ-SSS (mean difference = -2.2; 95% CI: -2.5 to -1.9; P < .001), BCTQ-FSS (mean difference = -2.1; 95% CI: -2.4 to -1.7; P < .001), and pain VAS (mean difference = -5.1; 95% CI: -6.2 to -4.1; P < .001). The sole predictor of improvement in BCTQ-SSS, BCTQ-FSS, and pain VAS was a higher preoperative score for the respective variable (all P < .001). The risk of complications (mainly short-term pillar pain or scar complications) was 8.9% (95% CI: 4.0%-13.8%) and increased with longer incision lengths (P = .008). Revision carpal tunnel release was performed in 0.6% (95% CI: 0.1%-1.0%) of the cases during follow-up. No cases of median nerve transection were reported.ConclusionsBased on a best-evidence meta-analysis of contemporary studies, mOCTR significantly improved function and pain, with a relatively low risk of mainly temporary complications. Patient outcomes after mOCTR were influenced by patient symptomatology and surgical incision length.Clinical relevanceMini-open carpal tunnel release is an effective surgical option that significantly improves symptoms and function, especially for patients with more severe baseline dysfunction. Surgeons should use the shortest incision that allows adequate visualization to safely divide the transverse carpal ligament.

Dataset Information

Endoscopic and Open Release Similarly Safe for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Endoscopic and Open Release Similarly Safe for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets