Evaluation of Preoperative Expectations and Patient Satisfaction After Carpal Tunnel Release

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
pp. 1783-1788 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Kadzielski ◽  
Leah R. Malhotra ◽  
David Zurakowski ◽  
Sang-Gil P. Lee ◽  
Jesse B. Jupiter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Preoperative Expectations

scholarly journals Efficacy of ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block versus forearm intravenous regional anaesthesia in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release: A randomized controlled trial

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0246863
Author(s):  
Hassanin Jalil ◽  
Florence Polfliet ◽  
Kristof Nijs ◽  
Liesbeth Bruckers ◽  
Gerrit De Wachter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Nerve Block ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Regional Anaesthesia ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Intravenous Regional Anaesthesia

Background and objectives Distal upper extremity surgery is commonly performed under regional anaesthesia, including intravenous regional anaesthesia (IVRA) and ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block. This study aimed to investigate if ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block is superior to forearm IVRA in producing a surgical block in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release. Methods In this observer-blinded, randomized controlled superiority trial, 100 patients undergoing carpal tunnel release were randomized to receive ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block (n = 50) or forearm IVRA (n = 50). The primary outcome was anaesthetic efficacy evaluated by classifying the blocks as complete vs incomplete. Complete anaesthesia was defined as total sensory block, incomplete anaesthesia as mild pain requiring more analgesics or need of general anaesthesia. Pain intensity on a numeric rating scale (0–10) was recorded. Surgeon satisfaction with hemostasis, surgical time, and OR stay time were recorded. Patient satisfaction with the quality of the block was assessed at POD 1. Results In total, 43 (86%) of the forearm nerve blocks were evaluated as complete, compared to 33 (66%) of the forearm IVRA (p = 0.019). After the forearm nerve block, pain intensity was lower at discharge (-1.76 points lower, 95% CI (-2.92, -0.59), p = 0.0006) compared to patients treated with forearm IVRA. No differences in pain experienced at the start of the surgery, during surgery, and at POD1, nor in surgical time or total OR stay were observed between groups. Surgeon (p = 0.0016) and patient satisfaction (p = 0.0023) were slightly higher after forearm nerve block. Conclusion An ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block is superior compared to forearm IVRA in providing a surgical block in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release. Trial registration This trial was registered as NCT03411551.

The Results of Carpal Tunnel Release: Open Versus Endoscopic Technique

1994 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. BANDE ◽  
L. DE SMET ◽  
G. FABRY
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Endoscopic Technique ◽  
Open Release ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Open Versus ◽  
Portal Technique

We retrospectively compared two similar groups of patients who underwent either endoscopic decompression of the carpal tunnel (single portal technique, 44 patients) or open decompression (58 patients) during 1 year in our department. To find out whether there was any subjective difference between the results of the two techniques, we sent each patient a questionnaire and received a 95% response. No major complications occurred. Three endoscopic decompressions had to be abandoned, and open release was performed. We could not demonstrate any significant difference in relief of symptoms and return to work between the two groups. Patient satisfaction at 6 to 18 months follow-up was high with both techniques.

Patient Satisfaction After Open Carpal Tunnel Release Correlates With Depression

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Santiago A. Lozano Calderón ◽  
Alex Paiva ◽  
David Ring
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Open Carpal Tunnel Release

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes between Two Different Techniques of Carpal Tunnel Release: Classical Incision versus Minimal Incision

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajad Heidari ◽  
Alireza Taabbod ◽  
Mahmoud Farzan ◽  
Sadegh Saberi ◽  
Mitra Ashrafi
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Visual Analogue Score ◽  
Minimal Incision ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
One Year

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common compression neuropathy in the upper limb which needs surgery in many cases. Two common surgical incisions for carpal tunnel release (CTR) are classical incision and minimal incision. In this survey, the aim is to compare patient-reported outcomes of these two types of incisions. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with CTS who underwent two different approaches for CTR (classical or minimal) during one year were included. The diagnosis was confirmed clinically and by electrodiagnostic studies. The patients were categorized into two groups regarding the type of surgery. At the 12-month visit, the patients were assessed for functional outcome, level of the pain, and satisfaction with Quick Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder score (QuickDASH), the visual analogue score (VAS) scale, and the scar appearance and symptom relief, respectively. Results: 39 patients were entered in this study, 3 of who had bilateral symptoms. The 42 operated hands were divided into two groups: classical incision group (n = 21) and minimal incision group (n = 21). No significant difference was discovered between the two groups considering age and sex. In addition, no significant difference was found in the variables evaluated between the two groups, except for the higher patient satisfaction with the scar appearance in minimal incision group after 12 months. Conclusion: After a one-year period, the minimal incision procedure had no priority to classical incision procedure, except for higher patient satisfaction considering the scar appearance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document