A Thurston1, N Lam. 1. Department of Surgery, Wellington School of Medicine, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many recent reports of the results of decompression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel have concentrated on only one aspect of recovery (numbness, grip etc.), and there are no reports of a comprehensive study of outcome. The aim of the present study was to review comprehensively the results of the direct visualization method of decompression of the carpal tunnel and to compare them with the published results of endoscopic release. METHODS: Patients' perceptions of the severity of pain, numbness and paraesthesiae due to carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), before and after open carpal tunnel release (CTR) in 188 hands were reviewed retrospectively at a minimum time of follow-up of 18 months. Motor and sensory testing, provocation testing and measurement of scar tenderness in 135 hands were performed at a clinical review. RESULTS: Subjective results showed that 70% experienced a reduction in the severity of pain after CTR, 78% of hands experienced a reduction in the severity of paraesthesiae and 77% experienced a reduction in the severity of numbness. A total of 49% had improvements in all three symptoms after CTR. At the clinical review, sensory testing revealed that 59% of hands had normal or slightly diminished light touch, 35% had normal static two-point discrimination and 61% had normal dynamic two-point discrimination. Results for Tinel's test, Phalen's test and pressure provocation testing were positive in 10% of hands. There was no scar tenderness in 38%, no persisting thenar atrophy in 90%. Normal grip strength was found in 93% and 91% had normal pinch strength. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that open carpal tunnel release remains a safe and reliable treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. The very low incidence of serious complications from the open technique of CTR, when compared with endoscopic CTR as published by different authors in the literature, and the comparable clinical results, appears to make the open technique a safer and preferable option. However, a properly controlled trial of both techniques is necessary to compare them.
BACKGROUND: Many recent reports of the results of decompression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel have concentrated on only one aspect of recovery (numbness, grip etc.), and there are no reports of a comprehensive study of outcome. The aim of the present study was to review comprehensively the results of the direct visualization method of decompression of the carpal tunnel and to compare them with the published results of endoscopic release. METHODS:Patients' perceptions of the severity of pain, numbness and paraesthesiae due to carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), before and after open carpal tunnel release (CTR) in 188 hands were reviewed retrospectively at a minimum time of follow-up of 18 months. Motor and sensory testing, provocation testing and measurement of scar tenderness in 135 hands were performed at a clinical review. RESULTS: Subjective results showed that 70% experienced a reduction in the severity of pain after CTR, 78% of hands experienced a reduction in the severity of paraesthesiae and 77% experienced a reduction in the severity of numbness. A total of 49% had improvements in all three symptoms after CTR. At the clinical review, sensory testing revealed that 59% of hands had normal or slightly diminished light touch, 35% had normal static two-point discrimination and 61% had normal dynamic two-point discrimination. Results for Tinel's test, Phalen's test and pressure provocation testing were positive in 10% of hands. There was no scar tenderness in 38%, no persisting thenar atrophy in 90%. Normal grip strength was found in 93% and 91% had normal pinch strength. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that open carpal tunnel release remains a safe and reliable treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. The very low incidence of serious complications from the open technique of CTR, when compared with endoscopic CTR as published by different authors in the literature, and the comparable clinical results, appears to make the open technique a safer and preferable option. However, a properly controlled trial of both techniques is necessary to compare them.
Authors: Robert J MacFarlane; Thomas D Donnelly; Yousaf Khan; Syam Morapudi; Mohammad Waseem; Jochen Fischer Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 3.411