Dataset Information

Comparison of Local-Only Anesthesia Versus Sedation in Patients Undergoing Staged Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Release: A Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disease treated operatively. During the operation, the patient may be wide-awake or sedated. The current literature has only compared separate cohorts. We sought to compare patient experience with both local-only anesthesia and sedation. Methods: Staged bilateral carpal tunnel release utilizing open or endoscopic technique was scheduled and followed through to completion of per-protocol analysis in 31 patients. Patients chose initial hand laterality and were randomized regarding initial anesthesia method: local-only or sedation. Data collection via questionnaires began at consent and continued to 6 weeks postoperatively from second procedure. Primary outcome measures included patient satisfaction and patient anesthesia preference. Results: At final follow-up, 6 weeks postoperatively, high satisfaction (30 of 31 patients per method) was reported with both types of anesthesia. Among these patients, 17 (54%) preferred local-only anesthesia, 10 (34%) preferred sedation, 2 had no preference, and 2 opted out of response. Although anesthesia fees were approximately $390 lower with local-only anesthesia, total costs for carpal tunnel release were not significantly different with respect to the anesthesia cohorts. Total time in surgical facility was approximately 26 minutes quicker with local-only anesthesia, largely due to shorter time in the post-anesthesia care unit. Scaled comparison of worst postoperative pain following the 2 procedures revealed no difference between local-only anesthesia and sedation. Conclusions: Patients reported equal satisfaction scores with carpal tunnel release whether performed under local-only anesthesia or with sedation. In addition, local-only anesthesia was indicated as the preference of patients in 59% of cases.

SUBMITTER: Via GG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7850244 | 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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Local-Only Anesthesia Versus Sedation in Patients Undergoing Staged Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Release: A Randomized Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets