Comparison of Complication Risk for Open Carpal Tunnel Release: In-office versus Operating Room Settings.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Performing open carpal tunnel release (oCTR) in an office-based procedure room setting (PR) decreases surgical costs when compared with the operating room (OR). However, it is unclear if the risk of major medical, wound, and iatrogenic complications differ between settings. Our purpose was to compare the risk of major medical complications associated with oCTR between PR and OR settings.Methods
Utilizing the MarketScan Database, we identified adults undergoing isolated oCTR between 2006 and 2015 performed in PR and OR settings. ICD-9-CM and/or CPT codes were used to identify major medical complications, surgical site complications, and iatrogenic complications within 90 days of oCTR. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare complication risk between groups.Results
Of the 2134 PR and 76,216 OR cases, the risk of major medical complications was 0.89% (19/2134) and 1.20% (914/76,216), respectively, with no difference observed in the multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.84; 95% CI 0.53-1.33; P=0.45). Risk of surgical site complications was 0.56% (12/2134) and 0.81% (616/76,216) for the PR and OR, respectively, with no difference in the multivariable analysis (OR 0.68; 95% C.I. 0.38-1.22; P=0.19). Iatrogenic complications were rarely observed (PR 1/2134 [0.05%], OR 71/76,216 [0.09%]), which precluded multivariable modeling.Conclusion
These results support a similar safety profile for both the PR and OR surgical settings following oCTR with similar pooled major medical complications, pooled wound/surgical site complications, and iatrogenic complications.
SUBMITTER: Randall DJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8274797 | 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: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.
| S-EPMC9575820 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTrigger digit release (TDR) performed in an office-based procedure room (PR) setting minimizes surgical costs compared with that performed in an operating room (OR); yet, it remains unclear whether the rates of major complications differ by setting. We hypothesized that surgical setting does not have an impact on the rate of major complications after TDR.MethodsAdult patients who underwent isolated TDR from 2006 to 2015 were identified from the MarketScan commercial database (IBM) using the provider current procedural terminology code 26055 with a concordant diagnosis on the same claim line (International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification 727.03). The PR cohort was defined by presence of a place-of-service code for an in-office procedure without OR or ambulatory center revenue codes, or anesthesiologist claims, on the day of the surgery. The OR cohort was defined by presence of an OR revenue code. We identified major medical complications, surgical site complications, as well as iatrogenic neurovascular and tendon complications within 90 days of the surgery using International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification diagnosis and/or current procedural terminology codes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the risk of complications between the PR and OR groups while controlling for Elixhauser comorbidities, smoking, and demographics.ResultsFor 7,640 PR and 29,962 OR cases, the pooled rate of major medical complications was 0.99% (76/7,640) and 1.47% (440/29,962), respectively. The PR setting was associated with a significantly lower risk of major medical complications in the multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.98). The pooled rate of surgical site complications was 0.67% (51/7,640) and 0.88% (265/29,962) for the PR and OR cases, respectively, with no difference between the surgical settings in the multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratio 0.81; 95% confidence interval 0.60-1.10). Iatrogenic complications were infrequently observed (PR 5/7,640 [0.07%]; OR 26/29,962 [0.09%]).ConclusionsCompared with performing TDR in the OR using a spectrum of commonly used anesthesia types, performing TDR in the PR using local-only anesthesia was associated with a comparably low risk of major medical complications, surgical complications, and iatrogenic complications.Type of study/level of evidencePrognostic II.
| S-EPMC8500925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The main purpose of this research was to do an intraindividual comparison of outcomes between the open ulnar incision (OUI) and the Paine retinaculotome with palmar incision (PRWPI) techniques in patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The patients underwent OUI surgery on one hand and PRWPI surgery on the contralateral hand. The patients were evaluated with the Boston carpal tunnel questionnaire, visual analogue scale for pain, palmar grip strength, and fingertip, key, and tripod pinch strengths. Both hands were examined in the preoperative and postoperative periods after 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 and 6 months. Eighteen patients (36 hands) were evaluated. The symptoms severity scale (SSS) scores were higher, in the preoperative period, in the hands that underwent surgery with PRWPI (
| S-EPMC10212645 | 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: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: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: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: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:BackgroundThere is little research on the long-term outcomes of open carpal tunnel release. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the functional and symptomatic outcomes of patients at a minimum of ten years postoperatively.MethodsTwo hundred and eleven patients underwent open carpal tunnel release from 1996 to 2000 performed by the same hand fellowship-trained surgeon. Follow-up with validated self-administered questionnaire instruments was conducted an average of thirteen years after surgery. The principal outcomes included the Levine-Katz symptom and function scores, ranging from 1 point (best) to 5 points (worst), and satisfaction with the results of surgery. The patients self-reported current comorbidities.ResultsAfter a mean follow-up of thirteen years (range, eleven to seventeen years), 92% (194) of 211 patients were located. They included 140 who were still living and fifty-four who had died. Seventy-two percent (113) of the 157 located, surviving patients responded to the questionnaire. The mean Levine-Katz symptom score (and standard deviation) was 1.3 ± 0.5 points, and 13% of patients had a poor symptom score (≥2 points). The mean Levine-Katz function score was 1.6 ± 0.8 points, and 26% had a poor function score (≥2 points). The most common symptom-related complaint was weakness in the hand, followed by diurnal pain, numbness, and tingling. The least common symptoms were nocturnal pain and tenderness at the incision. Eighty-eight percent of the patients were either completely satisfied or very satisfied with the surgery. Seventy-four percent reported their symptoms to be completely resolved. Thirty-three percent of men were classified as having poor function compared with 23% of women. Two (1.8%) of 113 patients underwent repeat surgery.ConclusionsAt an average of thirteen years after open carpal tunnel release, the majority of patients are satisfied and free of symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome.
| S-EPMC3748987 | biostudies-literature