CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Research
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Carpal tunnel release surgery- a systematic review of open and endoscopic approaches
Authors
E.M. Cornett
S. Hirji
+12 more
F. Imani
M.R. Jones
A.D. Kaye
L. Manchikanti
C. Odonkor
M.S. Orhurhu
V. Orhurhu
S. Orman
J. Peck
I. Urits
G. Varrassi
O. Viswanath
Publication date
1 January 2020
Publisher
'Kowsar Medical Institute'
Abstract
Context: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most frequent peripheral compression-induced neuropathy observed in patients worldwide. Surgery is necessary when conservative treatments fail and severe symptoms persist. Traditional Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) with visualization of carpal tunnel is considered the gold standard for decompression. However, Endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR), a less invasive technique than OCTR is emerging as a standard of care in recent years. Evidence Acquisition: Criteria for this systematic review were derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two review authors searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database in May 2018 using the following MeSH terms from 1993-2016: �carpal tunnel syndrome,' �median nerve neuropathy,' �endoscopic carpal tunnel release,' �endoscopic surgery,' �open carpal tunnel release,' �open surgery,' and �carpal tunnel surgery.' Additional sources, including Google Scholar, were added. Also, based on bibliographies and consultation with experts, appropriate publications were identified. The primary outcome measure was pain relief. Results: For this analysis, 27 studies met inclusion criteria. Results indicate that ECTR produced superior post-operative pain outcomes during short-term follow-up. Of the studies meeting inclusion criteria for this analysis, 17 studies evaluated pain as a primary or secondary outcome, and 15 studies evaluated pain, pillar tenderness, or incision tenderness at short-term follow-up. Most studies employed a VAS for assessment, and the majority reported superior short-term pain outcomes following ECTR at intervals ranging from one hour up to 12 weeks. Several additional studies reported equivalent pain outcomes at short-term follow-up as early as one week. No study reported inferior short-term pain outcomes following ECTR. Conclusions: ECTR and OCTR produce satisfactory results in pain relief, symptom resolution, patient satisfaction, time to return to work, and adverse events. There is a growing body of evidence favoring the endoscopic technique for pain relief, functional outcomes, and satisfaction, at least in the early post-operative period, even if this difference disappears over time. Several studies have demonstrated a quicker return to work and activities of daily living with the endoscopic technique. © 2020, Author(s)
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
eprints Iran University of Medical Sciences
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:eprints.iums.ac.ir:33681
Last time updated on 03/06/2021