Dataset Information

Simultaneous Bilateral Versus Staged Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Release: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine if simultaneous bilateral carpal tunnel release (CTR) is a cost-effective strategy compared with bilateral staged CTR for the treatment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.A decision analytic model was created to compare the cost effectiveness of three strategies (ie, bilateral simultaneous CTR, bilateral staged CTR, and no treatment). Direct medical costs were estimated from 2013 Medicare reimbursement rates and wholesale drug costs in US dollars. Indirect costs were derived from consecutive patients undergoing unilateral or simultaneous bilateral CTR at our institution and from national average wages for 2013. Health state utility values were derived from a general population of volunteers using the Short Form-6 dimensions (SF-6D) health questionnaire.Both surgical strategies were cost effective compared with the no-treatment strategy. Bilateral simultaneous CTR had lower total costs and higher total effectiveness than bilateral staged CTR, and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $921 per quality-adjusted life year compared with the no-treatment strategy. The conclusions of the analysis remained unchanged though all sensitivity analyses, displaying robustness against parameter uncertainty.Surgical management is cost effective for the treatment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Bilateral simultaneous CTR, however, has lower total costs and higher total effectiveness compared with bilateral staged CTR.Economic and Decision Analysis I.

SUBMITTER: Park KW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5539762 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Simultaneous Bilateral Versus Staged Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Release: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Park Kevin W KW Boyer Martin I MI Gelberman Richard H RH Calfee Ryan P RP Stepan Jeffrey G JG Osei Daniel A DA

The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 20161101 11

The purpose of this study was to determine if simultaneous bilateral carpal tunnel release (CTR) is a cost-effective strategy compared with bilateral staged CTR for the treatment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.<h4>Methods</h4>A decision analytic model was created to compare the cost effectiveness of three strategies (ie, bilateral simultaneous CTR, bilateral staged CTR, and no treatment). Direct medical costs were estimated from 2013 Medicare reimbursement rates and wholesale drug costs in ...[more]

PMID: 27668663

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:BackgroundOver 60% of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome present with symptoms and findings of nerve compression in both hands. Our goal was to compare patient-rated difficulties in performing activities of daily living in the early postoperative period between those undergoing bilateral carpal tunnel release and those undergoing unilateral carpal tunnel release.MethodsThis prospective cohort study enrolled consecutive patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome undergoing bilateral carpal tunnel release (n = 47) or unilateral carpal tunnel release (n = 41). Patient function and disease severity were measured by an abbreviated form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, QuickDASH, and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire at baseline, at postoperative visit 1 at a mean time (and standard deviation) of 10 ± 3 days, and at postoperative visit 2 at a mean time (and standard deviation) of 30 ± 6 days. Patients rated their difficulty in completing fifteen activities of daily living each day for the first postoperative week. Patients reported the factors that influenced their choice of surgery.ResultsThere was no difference in baseline function or disease severity between the two groups with regard to QuickDASH and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. Patients in both groups improved after carpal tunnel release with no difference between groups either at postoperative visit 1 for QuickDASH (p = 0.97) and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (p = 0.86) or at postoperative visit 2 for QuickDASH (p = 0.43) and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (p = 0.34). Patients undergoing bilateral carpal tunnel release had more difficulty only during postoperative days 1 to 2 in opening jars (p = 0.03), cooking (p = 0.008), and doing household chores (p = 0.02). Patients in the two groups did not differ (p > 0.05) in their abilities to perform activities of daily living necessary for personal hygiene or independence on any day during the first seven days following surgery with regard to using the bathroom, bathing, dressing, or eating. Although the most common reason why patients chose bilateral carpal tunnel release was to avoid two surgical procedures (42%), the most common reason why patients chose unilateral carpal tunnel release was concern for self-care (36%).ConclusionsPatients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome can anticipate more severe functional impairment during the first few postoperative days with bilateral carpal tunnel release compared with unilateral carpal tunnel release, but limitations beyond postoperative day 2 or 3 are similar for bilateral and unilateral carpal tunnel release.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel release (CTR) is a surgical treatment option for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) symptoms that are unresponsive to conservative treatment. Most patients experience symptomatic relief after CTR regardless of the surgical technique. However, direct comparisons of the safety and effectiveness between CTR surgical techniques are limited. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the safety and effectiveness of CTR with ultrasound guidance (CTR-US) versus mini-open CTR (mOCTR) in subjects with symptomatic CTS.Design and methodsTUTOR (Trial of Ultrasound guided CTR versus Traditional Open Release) is a randomized controlled trial in which 120 subjects at up to 12 sites in the United States will be randomized (2:1) to receive CTR-US or mOCTR. The primary endpoint of the study is the percentage of patients who return to normal daily activities within 3 days of the procedure. Secondary endpoints of the study are median time to return to normal daily activities, percentage of patients who return to work within 3 days of the procedure, median time to return to work, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) change score at 3 months, BCTQ Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS) change score at 3 months, Numeric Pain Scale change score at 3 months, EuroQoL-5 Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) change score at 3 months, and the incidence of device- or procedure-related adverse events at 3 months. Patient follow-up in this trial will continue for 1 year.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by a central institutional review board and ongoing trial oversight will be provided by a data safety monitoring board (DSMB). The authors intend to report the results of this trial at medical conferences and peer-reviewed journals. The outcomes of TUTOR will have important clinical and economic implications for all stakeholders involved in treating patients with CTS.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT05405218.Level of evidence1.

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

Simultaneous Bilateral Versus Staged Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Release: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Publications

Simultaneous Bilateral Versus Staged Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Release: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets