Dataset Information

Intraindividual comparison between open and endoscopic release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:This study evaluated functional outcomes and safety after endoscopic and open bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome release in opposite hands of the same patients through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial data. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Randomized controlled trials involving both methods in opposite hands of patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome were identified via a systematic review of PUBMED and EMBASE. RESULTS:Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from five randomized controlled trials involving 142 patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome were calculated using fixed- or random-effect methods, with a length of follow-up from 24 to 52 weeks after surgery. Compared with open release, endoscopic carpal tunnel release was associated with significantly better Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire functional status scores (mean difference [MD] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.02 - 0.25]; P = 0.02), but not symptom severity scores (RR = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15 to 0.04]; P = 0.25). Endoscopic release required a longer operative time, but the procedures did not differ significantly in visual analog scale pain scores (MD = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.08 to 0.11]; P = 0.75), handgrip strength (MD = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.03 to 2.37]; P = 0.88), digital sensibility static two-point discrimination (MD = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.03 to 0.70]; P = 0.07), or complication rates (MD = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.05], P = 0.47). CONCLUSION:From intraindividual evidence, endoscopic release promoted better recovery of daily life functions than open release, but required a longer operative time. The procedures provided similar symptom relief and hand strength and sensibility recovery, and were safe for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.

SUBMITTER: Hu K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4831419 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intraindividual comparison between open and endoscopic release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Hu Kejia K Zhang Tiansong T Xu Wendong W

Brain and behavior 20160216 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>This study evaluated functional outcomes and safety after endoscopic and open bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome release in opposite hands of the same patients through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial data.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Randomized controlled trials involving both methods in opposite hands of patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome were identified via a systematic review of PUBMED and EMBASE.<h4>Results</h4>Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence ...[more]

PMID: 27099801

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: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.

Dataset Information

Intraindividual comparison between open and endoscopic release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Intraindividual comparison between open and endoscopic release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets