A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Open and Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release Within the Same Patient.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Michelotti BM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7225896 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8177000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate changes in the median nerve, retinaculum, and carpal tunnel on ultrasound after successful endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR).Materials and methodsThis prospective study involved 37 wrists in 35 patients (5 male, 30 female; mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 56.9 ± 6.7 years) with primary carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). An in-house developed scoring system (0-3) was used to gauge the clinical improvement after ECTR. Ultrasound was performed before ECTR, and at 1, 3, and 12 months post-ECTR. Changes in the median nerve, flexor retinaculum, and carpal tunnel morphology on ultrasound after ECTR were analyzed. Ultrasound parameters for different clinical improvement groups were compared.ResultsAll patients improved clinically after ECTR. The average clinical improvement score ± SD at 12 months post-ECTR was 2.2 ± 0.7. The median nerve cross-sectional area proximal and distal to the tunnel decreased at all time intervals post-ECTR but remained swollen compared to normal values. Serial changes in the median nerve caliber and retinacular bowing after ECTR were more pronounced at the tunnel outlet than at the tunnel inlet. The flexor retinaculum had reformed in 25 (68%) of 37 wrists after 12 months.ConclusionPostoperative changes in median nerve and retinaculum parameters were most pronounced at the tunnel outlet. Even in patients with clinical improvement after ECTR, nearly all ultrasound parameters remain abnormal at one year post-ECTR. These ultrasound parameters should not necessarily be relied upon to diagnose persistent CTS after ECTR.
| S-EPMC8236373 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Various surgical procedures for carpal tunnel syndrome exist, such as open release, ultrasound-guided percutaneous release, and endoscopic release. Postoperative pain, scarring, and slow recovery to normal function are reported complications of open release. Damage to vessels and the median nerve and its branches underlying the transverse carpal ligament is a reported complication of ultrasound-guided percutaneous release. Damage to the superficial palmar arch and incomplete release are reported complications of endoscopic release. By performing endoscopic carpal tunnel release with ultrasound assistance, we could visualize neurovascular structures directly with the endoscope and also indirectly with ultrasound to minimize complications. We could also evaluate the morphologic changes of the median nerve dynamically before and after the release. We discuss the technique for this procedure and outline pearls and pitfalls for success.
| S-EPMC5021238 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThe authors performed an intra-individual comparison of surgical results between the open and endoscopic surgical techniques in patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Each hand was submitted to surgery using one of these techniques.MethodsFifteen patients (30 hands) were evaluated by the Boston Questionnaire, visual analogue pain scale, palmar grip strength, and for tip, key, and tripod pinch strengths. These measurements were taken before surgery and at two weeks, one month, three months, and six months after the procedure. Scores for each evaluation tool in each evaluation time period were compared.ResultsIn comparison to the group submitted to open surgery, the group submitted to endoscopic surgery had worse scores in the evaluation of the 1st and 6th postoperative months regarding the severity of the symptoms. The authors found no differences in the functional status of the hand. Regarding the intensity of pain evaluated by the visual analogue pain scale, no difference was found between the averages in all time periods evaluated. No differences in palmar grip strength and in fingertip, key (lateral), and tripod pinch strengths were found in all time periods. There were no differences between averages in the preoperative period at two weeks, one month, and three months after surgery. After six months, the group of patients submitted to open surgery presented greater tripod force than the group of patients who underwent endoscopic surgery.ConclusionNo differences were observed by using the intra-individual evaluation in the results between open and endoscopic techniques for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.
| S-EPMC6204539 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4317413 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) both have advantages and disadvantages for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We compared the effectiveness and safety of ECTR and OCTR based on evidence from a high-level randomized controlled trial. METHODS:We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Medline to identify relevant articles published until August 2019. Data regarding operative time, grip strength, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire scores, digital sensation, patient satisfaction, key pinch strength, return to work time, and complications were extracted and compared. All mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were expressed as ECTR relative to OCTR. RESULTS:Our meta-analysis contained twenty-eight studies. ECTR was associated with significantly higher satisfaction rates (MD, 3.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43 to 4.82; P?=?0.0003), greater key pinch strengths (MD, 0.79?kg; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.32; P?=?0.003), earlier return to work times (MD, -?7.25?days; 95% CI, -?14.31 to -?0.19; P?=?0.04), higher transient nerve injury rates (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.37 to 17.25; P?=?0.01), and a lower incidence of scar-related complications (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.59; P?=?0.004). The permanent nerve injury showed no significant differences between the two methods (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.58 to 6.40; P?=?0.28). CONCLUSIONS:Overall, evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that ECTR results in better recovery of daily life functions compared to OCTR, as revealed by higher satisfaction rates, greater key pinch strengths, earlier return to work times, and fewer scar-related complications. Our findings suggest that patients with CTS can be effectively managed with ECTR.
| S-EPMC7187537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel release (CTR) has traditionally been performed through an open approach, although in recent years endoscopic CTR has gained in popularity.Questions/purposesWe sought to assess whether a difference exists between the rates of nerve repair surgery following open versus endoscopic CTR in New York State (NYS).MethodsPatients undergoing endoscopic and open CTR from 1997 to 2013 were identified from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database from the NYS Department of Health using Current Procedural Terminology, 4th Revision (CPT-4) codes 29848 and 64721, respectively. The primary outcome measure was subsequent nerve repair surgery (as identified using CPT-4 codes 64831-64837, 64856, 64857, 64859, 64872, 64874, and 64876). Other variables analyzed included patient age, sex, payer, and surgery year.ResultsThere were 294,616 CTRs performed in NYS from 1997 to 2013. While the incidence of open CTR remained higher than endoscopic CTR, the proportion of endoscopic CTR steadily increased, from 16% (2984/19,089) in 2007 to 25% (5594/22,271) in 2013. For the 134,143 patients having a single CTR, the rate of subsequent nerve repair was significantly higher following endoscopic CTR (0.09%) compared to open CTR (0.04%). The Cox model showed that factors significantly associated with a higher risk of subsequent nerve repair surgery were endoscopic CTR and younger age.ConclusionsEndoscopic CTR has been increasingly performed in NYS and associated with a higher rate of subsequent nerve repair. This rate likely underestimates the incidence of nerve injuries because it only captures those patients who had subsequent surgery. While this catastrophic complication remains rare, further investigation is warranted, given the rise of endoscopic CTR in the setting of equivalent outcomes, but favorable reimbursement, versus open CTR.
| S-EPMC6609660 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4831419 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4682940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is the most common hand surgery operation performed in the United States. While serious complications are rare, they can be life-altering to patients. In some cases, patients will pursue malpractice claims against the surgeon. This study aimed to understand the patient, procedure, and surgeon factors involved in CTR malpractice litigation. Methods: The Westlaw legal database was queried for all recorded CTR malpractice cases resulting in jury verdicts and settlements. Only cases directly related to injury after CTR were included in this study. Cases were reviewed to determine plaintiff demographics, defendant training, liability, injury, outcomes, and monetary awards. Results: Ninety-two unique cases were identified. Plaintiffs were predominantly female (n = 65, 71%). Most surgeons were orthopedic-trained (n = 37, 52%). Only 27% of defendants (n = 19) were hand fellowship-trained. Only 19% of cases resulting in a monetary award were against surgeons who had hand fellowship training. The majority of cases (n = 61, 66%) were found in favor of the defendant. Monetary awards averaged $305 923 (range = $12 000-1 338 147), while settlements averaged $266 250. Alleged liability was most for surgeon negligence (n = 69, 75%) with a third of cases resulting in monetary awards. Median nerve injury was claimed in 41 cases (45%), with 17 (41%) resulting in monetary awards. Conclusion: Although CTR is generally safe and effective, some patients will experience complications. Median nerve injury was the most common reason for successful litigation in this study. Adequate training and experience in hand surgery may lower the risk of injuries resulting in successful malpractice suits.
| S-EPMC6760086 | biostudies-literature