Ultrasonography Findings of the Carpal Tunnel after Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To investigate changes in the median nerve, retinaculum, and carpal tunnel on ultrasound after successful endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR).Materials and methods
This 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.Results
All 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.Conclusion
Postoperative 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.
SUBMITTER: Ng AWH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8236373 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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-literature
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: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.
| S-EPMC10787312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundApproximately 56% of patients diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome present with bilateral symptoms; however, few studies have investigated bilateral simultaneous endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and postoperative effect on return to activity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the length of recovery in patients who received bilateral simultaneous ECTR, including pain medication requirements, return to activities of daily living, return to work, and return to recreational activities.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent bilateral ECTR by a single hand fellowship-trained surgeon from 2013 to 2019. Demographic, operative, and clinical outcomes were collected via chart review and a telephone interview. Student t tests and χ2 tests were conducted for analysis.ResultsEighty patients were included in the study; 40 were successfully contacted for telephone interview follow-up. Patients reported an average of 2 days of use of postoperative narcotic pain medication and an average of 5, 7, and 19 days of return to activities of daily living, work, and recreational activities, respectively. Female patients reported more days of narcotic pain medications (1 day vs 3 days, P = .0483) and an average of longer return to work than men (9 days vs 5 days, P = .0477). Manual laborers reported longer return to work (9 days vs 5 days, P = .0500). Older patients (aged >65 years) reported longer return to recreational activities (39 days vs 11 days, P = .0189).ConclusionsSimultaneous bilateral ECTR is a successful procedure with shorter recovery times than reported previously. Female patients, manual laborers, and older patients experience a longer recovery and should be counseled appropriately.
| S-EPMC9274870 | biostudies-literature
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:We analyzed trends in open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (CTR) from 2014 to 2019 using the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups in Japan (NDB). Japan has a universal health insurance system and more than 95% of all claims are searchable in the NDB open data repository. The results revealed that nearly 40,000 CTRs were performed annually in Japan, and open CTR was performed almost 4 times more often than endoscopic CTR. The crude annual incidence of CTR in the general population among people 20 years of age or older was 32.2 per 100,000. The incidence of open CTR peaked in the 80-84 age range for both males and females. The incidence of endoscopic CTR peaked at 80-84 years in females and at 75-79 years in males. There was a mild correlation coefficient between the endoscopic CTRs and the number of hand surgery specialists by prefecture per population (r = 0.32, p = 0.04). However, the number of hand surgeons per capita by region and open CTR per capita was not correlated (r = 0.06, p = 0.67). There were about twice as many outpatient as inpatient surgeries, reflecting a trend toward ambulatory treatment.
| S-EPMC9456605 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) using best-evidence synthesis methods.MethodsA systematic search of multiple databases was conducted for prospective contemporary studies published between January 2013 and January 2023 with at least 50 ECTR cases. Outcomes included the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (Q-DASH) measured on a 0-100 scale, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) and Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS) on a 1-5 scale, pain visual analog scale on a 0-10 scale, conversion to open carpal tunnel release (CTR), complications, and reoperations. Outcomes were analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Metaregression was used to determine the association of patient- and study-level factors with ECTR outcomes.ResultsA total of 17 studies with 1,632 patients treated with ECTR were included. Median follow-up durations ranged from 4 to 7 months depending on the outcome. Statistically significant and clinically important improvements were noted after ECTR for Q-DASH, BCTQ-SSS, BCTQ-FSS, and pain visual analog scale scores, with mean differences from baseline of -28.8, -1.8, -1.5, and -5.1, respectively (P < .001 for all). In metaregression, the strongest predictor of improvement in Q-DASH, BCTQ-SSS, and BCTQ-FSS was a greater preoperative score for that variable (all P ≤ .005), indicating that patients with worse symptoms improved the most. The risks of conversion to open CTR, complications, and revision CTR were 0.7%, 0.7%, and 0.5%, respectively.ConclusionsIn a best-evidence synthesis of contemporary studies, ECTR resulted in significant improvements in function and pain, with a low risk of conversion to open surgery, complications, and reoperations over short-term follow-up.Clinical relevancePatients treated with ECTR can expect generally favorable clinical outcomes over the short term. However, long-term outcomes after ECTR are not well characterized.
| S-EPMC10721515 | 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
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:BackgroundThe 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.PurposeTo evaluate whether there is evidence supporting a higher risk after ECTR in comparison to the conventional open release.MethodsWe 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.ConclusionsECTR 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.Level of evidenceI.
| S-EPMC4682940 | biostudies-literature