Intraindividual comparison between open and endoscopic release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Meirelles

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)

et al. 2018

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.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Those authors retrieved only five studies, totaling only 142 patients who underwent surgery. 13 The present research is pioneering in Brazil, and the present authors believe it will be useful for future meta-analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Intra-individual evaluation of results between open and endoscopic release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome

Meirelles

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)

et al. 2018

“…Since the development of ECTR by Chow (12) and Okutsu et al [13] in 1989, there has been controversy regarding the superiority of ECTR over OCTR. Accordingly, many original articles have been published on this issue; moreover, several meta-analyses have compared ECTR with OCTR as treatment options for CTS [14,15,[21][22][23][51][52][53]. However, previous meta-analyses included fewer studies than ours, did not classify the data into subgroups according to different follow-up times, featured only a few assessments of patient outcome, and included central tendency data but not standard deviation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, ECTR is technically difficult, time consuming, and associated with incomplete transverse carpal ligament release and neurovascular injury [16][17][18][19][20]. Several meta-analyses have compared various measures of efficacy and safety between ECTR and OCTR [15,[21][22][23]. However, these investigations failed to separate subgroups according to different follow-up times and utilized limited evaluations of patient outcomes; therefore, it is not clear which approach is associated with better clinical results [24,25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Luo

et al. 2020

Preprint

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: Twenty-eight studies were included in our meta-analysis. 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). There were no significant differences between the two methods in terms of permanent nerve injury (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 than 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.

“…Nevertheless, ECTR is technically difficult, time consuming, and associated with incomplete transverse carpal ligament release and neurovascular injury (15- 19). Several meta-analyses have compared various measures of efficacy and safety between ECTR and OCTR (14, [20][21][22]. However, these investigations failed to separate subgroups according to different follow-up times and utilized limited evaluations of patient outcomes; therefore, it is not clear which approach is associated with better clinical results (23,24).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Luo

et al. 2020

Preprint

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. MethodsWe 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 Twenty-eight studies were included in our meta-analysis. 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). There were no significant differences between the two methods in terms of permanent nerve injury (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 than 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.