Dataset Information

Pre-operative Two-Point Discrimination Predicts Response to Carpal Tunnel Release.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Limited evidence informs whether pre-operative values of two-point discrimination (2PD) in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome predict response to surgery.

Questions/purposes

The primary aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of pre-operative 2PD scores on outcomes following carpal tunnel release (CTR). In particular, we sought to evaluate whether a clinically relevant 2PD threshold exists that can predict symptomatic response after surgery.

Methods

Patients who underwent CTR between 2014 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Static 2PD scores in each digit, as well as Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and Levine-Katz scores, were collected from pre- and post-operative records. Pearson correlation coefficients assessed the relationship between pre-operative 2PD, early post-operative 2PD, and patient-reported outcome scores. Poor 2PD was defined as 2PD greater than 10 mm.

Results

Eighty-nine hands in 73 patients with a mean follow-up of 1.8 years were analyzed. Mean pre- and post-operative 2PD was 7.2 mm and 6.4 mm, respectively, in the most affected digit when measurable. Twenty patients had poor 2PD scores pre-operatively and 14 post-operatively. There was a positive correlation between pre- and early post-operative 2PD scores but no correlation between pre-operative 2PD score and final post-operative functional scores. Only 30% of patients with poor pre-operative 2PD scores demonstrated improvement, compared with 69% of patients with measurable 2PD.

Conclusion

We found that greater pre-operative 2PD scores predicted greater early post-operative 2PD scores but did not lead to worse functional outcome scores post-operatively. Patients with poor pre-operative 2PD scores were likely to demonstrate improvement in functional outcomes scores, while having less reliable improvement in 2PD after CTR. Patients with poor 2PD should be counseled that improvement of tactile perception is less predictable.

SUBMITTER: Wessel LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7534881 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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.