Literature DB >> 27152579

A Randomized Comparison of Double Small, Standard, and Endoscopic Approaches for Carpal Tunnel Release.

Xu Zhang1,2, Xiangye Huang1,2, Xianhui Wang1,2, Shumin Wen1,2, Jianxin Sun1,2, Xinzhong Shao1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to introduce a new surgical technique of carpal tunnel release through double small incisions, and to compare the technique with the standard open release and endoscopic release.
METHODS: Two hundred and seven patients were allocated randomly into group A (n = 73), B (n = 65), or C (n = 69). Patients in group A were treated with carpal tunnel release by means of double small incisions. Patients in group B were treated by means of the standard incision. Patients in group C had endoscopic release.
RESULTS: Preoperatively, the mean severity of symptoms of groups A, B, and C was 3.7 ± 0.58, 3.8 ± 0.62, and 3.7 ± 0.52, respectively; and the mean functional status was 3.2 ± 0.71, 3.2 ± 0.71, and 3.5 ± 0.64, respectively. At the final follow-up of 3 years, the mean severity of symptoms of the groups was 1.2 ± 0.45, 1.2 ± 0.31, and 1.5 ± 0.36, respectively; and the mean functional status was 1.2 ± 0.38, 1.2 ± 0.41, and 1.5 ± 0.42, respectively. Patient satisfaction was 95 ± 4.2, 90 ± 5.8, and 93 ± 4.4, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups regarding symptom severity or function status (p > 0.05). For scar appearance, there were significant differences between groups A and B and between B and C, but not between A and C; for patient satisfaction, there were significant differences in all comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS: Carpal tunnel release by means of double small incisions is a minimally invasive and less technically challenging procedure with good nerve visualization, resulting in good appearance of scars. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27152579     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002511

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  5 in total

1.  Mini-open carpal tunnel release: technique, feasibility and clinical outcome compared to the conventional procedure in a long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Angelika M Schwarz; Georg Lipnik; Gloria M Hohenberger; Aurel Krauss; Michael Plecko
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  The comparison of limited-incision versus standard-incision in treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Gaocen Li; Lingde Kong; Ningzhao Kou; Yanxue Wang; Kunlun Yu; Jiangbo Bai; Dehu Tian
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.817

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

Authors:  Yueying Li; Wenqi Luo; Guangzhi Wu; Shusen Cui; Zhan Zhang; Xiaosong Gu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  Short incision versus minimally invasive surgery with tool-kit for carpal tunnel syndrome release: a prospective randomized control trial to evaluate the anterior wrist pain and time to return to work or activities.

Authors:  Pichitchai Atthakomol; Sitthikorn Kaensuk; Worapaka Manosroi; Apiruk Sangsin; Montana Buntragulpoontawee; Siam Tongprasert
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 2.562

Review 5.  Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery- A Systematic Review of Open and Endoscopic Approaches.

Authors:  Vwaire Orhurhu; Sebastian Orman; Jacquelin Peck; Ivan Urits; Mariam Salisu Orhurhu; Mark R Jones; Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Alan D Kaye; Charles Odonkor; Sameer Hirji; Elyse M Cornett; Farnad Imani; Giustino Varrassi; Omar Viswanath
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2020-12-26
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.