Surgical Techniques and Return to Work Following Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 474-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaveh A. Sanati ◽  
Massoud Mansouri ◽  
Duncan Macdonald ◽  
Shahab Ghafghazi ◽  
Ewan Macdonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Techniques

Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical options for recurrent or persistent carpal tunnel syndrome: simple decompression versus coverage of the median nerve

2021 ◽  
pp. 175319342110017
Author(s):  
Saskia F. de Roo ◽  
Philippe N. Sprangers ◽  
Erik T. Walbeehm ◽  
Brigitte van der Heijden
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ◽  
Median Nerve ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Open Release ◽  
Flap Coverage ◽  
Tunnel Syndrome

We performed a systematic review on the success of different surgical techniques for the management of recurrent and persistent carpal tunnel syndrome. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria and were grouped by the type of revision carpal tunnel release, which were simple open release, open release with flap coverage or open release with implant coverage. Meta-analysis showed no difference, and pooled success proportions were 0.89, 0.89 and 0.85 for simple open carpal tunnel release, additional flap coverage and implant groups, respectively. No added value for coverage of the nerve was seen. Our review indicates that simple carpal tunnel release without additional coverage of the median nerve seems preferable as it is less invasive and without additional donor site morbidity. We found that the included studies were of low quality with moderate risk of bias and did not differentiate between persistent and recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome.

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

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yueying Li ◽  
Wenqi Luo ◽  
Guangzhi Wu ◽  
Shusen Cui ◽  
Xiaossong Gu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Nerve Injury ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Satisfaction Rates

Abstract 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.

Prognostic factors for return to work following Carpal Tunnel Release: Systematic Review.

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Susan Peters ◽  
Venerina Johnston ◽  
Sonia Hines ◽  
Mark Ross ◽  
Michel Coppitiers
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release

scholarly journals Outcomes Following Carpal Tunnel Release in Patients Receiving Workers’ Compensation: A Systematic Review

Hand ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Dunn ◽  
Nicholas A. Kusnezov ◽  
Logan R. Koehler ◽  
Dennis Vanden Berge ◽  
Ben Genco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Standard Form ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Patient Demographics

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common occupational pathology, representing a high percentage of workers’ compensation (WC) claims. Methods: The literature was reviewed for all studies evaluating CTS outcomes including WC patients between 1993 and 2016. A total of 348 articles were identified; 25 of which met inclusion and exclusion criteria. A systematic review was generated; patient demographics, outcomes, and complications were recorded. Weighted averages were calculated for the demographic and outcome data. Categorical data such as complications were pooled from the studies and used to determine the overall complication rate. Statistical significance was determined between WC and non-WC cohorts when applicable with the chi-square statistic. Results: The WC cohort included 1586 wrists, and the non-WC cohort included 2781 wrists. The WC cohort was younger and more often involved the dominant extremity. The WC cohort was less likely to have appropriate physical exam findings confirming diagnosis and electrodiagnostic studies. WC patients took almost 5 weeks longer to return to work, were 16% less likely to return to preinjury vocation, and had lower Standard Form (SF)-36 scores. Finally, WC patients had nearly 3 times the number of complications and nearly twice the rate of persistent pain. Conclusions: WC patients undergoing carpal tunnel release (CTR) fare poorly as compared with non-WC patients in nearly every metric. Higher rates of postoperative pain with delayed return to work can be anticipated in a WC cohort. In addition, WC patients receive suboptimal preoperative workup, and it is possible that unnecessary surgery is being completed in these cases. These findings are important to consider when treating the WC patient with CTS.

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

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yueying Li ◽  
Wenqi Luo ◽  
Guangzhi Wu ◽  
Shusen Cui ◽  
Zhan Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Nerve Injury ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Satisfaction Rates

Abstract 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.

Does diabetes mellitus change the carpal tunnel release outcomes? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-401
Author(s):  
Ali Moradi ◽  
Ata Sadr ◽  
Mohammad H. Ebrahimzadeh ◽  
Golnaz Ghayyem Hassankhani ◽  
Hassan Mehrad-Majd
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Meta Analysis

Prognostic factors for return to work following Carpal Tunnel Release: Systematic Review.

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Peters ◽  
Venerina Johnston ◽  
Sonia Hines ◽  
Mark Ross ◽  
Michel Coppitiers
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document