scholarly journals Comparison of the Costs of Reusable Versus Disposable Equipment for Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release Procedures Using Activity-Based Costing Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Voigt ◽  
Daniel Seigerman ◽  
Kevin Lutsky ◽  
Pedro Beredjiklian ◽  
Charles Leinberry
Keyword(s):  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Activity Based Costing ◽  
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Disposable Equipment ◽  
Costing Analysis

Experiences with Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release

Swiss Surgery ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 181-185
Author(s):  
Buchli ◽  
Scharplatz
Keyword(s):  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Endoskopische Karpaltunnelspaltung

Im Spital Thusis wurden zwischen 1994 und 2000 122 Patienten wegen eines Karpaltunnelsyndroms operiert. Wir wollten wissen, ob die endoskopische Karpaltunnelspaltung in einem Regionalspital mit genügend hoher Sicherheit angewandt wurde und ob die Ergebnisse mit der offenen Karpaltunnelspaltung vergleichbar sind. In einer retrospektiven Studie konnten wir 82 Patienten mittels Fragebogen über das Operationsergebnis befragen. 39 Patienten wurden offen operiert, 26 mittels der Zweipfortentechnik nach Chow und 17 mittels Einpfortentechnik nach Agee. Schwere irreversible Komplikationen wurden nicht beobachtet. Bezüglich der Operationsergebnisse zeigten sich keine signifikanten Unterschiede in den drei Gruppen. Von den 39 offenen Karpaltunnelspaltungen klagten neun Patienten über Restbeschwerden, wobei es zu einer Reoperation wegen einer Thenarastverletzung kam. Bei den 26 endoskopischen Karpaltunnelspaltungen in Zweipfortentechnik traten bei acht Patienten Restbeschwerden auf, wobei eine Reoperation wegen exzessiver Vernarbung durchgeführt werden musste. Bei den 17 Operationen nach Agee hatten fünf Patienten Restbeschwerden, es musste jedoch keiner reoperiert werden. Die Studie zeigt, dass mit den drei unterschiedlichen Operationsverfahren bezüglich Sicherheit und Therapieerfolg vergleichbare Resultate erreicht wurden. Vorteile wegen dem atraumatischeren Zugang der endoskopischen Techniken konnten wir jedoch nicht objektivieren.

WALANT Technique versus Sedation for Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release

Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472110031
Author(s):  
Ian Wellington ◽  
Antonio Cusano ◽  
Joel V. Ferreira ◽  
Anthony Parrino
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Postanesthesia Care Unit ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Average Operating ◽  
Wide Awake ◽  
No Tourniquet ◽  
Room Time

Background This study sought to investigate complication rates/perioperative metrics after endoscopic carpal tunnel release (eCTR) via wide-awake, local anesthesia, no tourniquet (WALANT) versus sedation or local anesthesia with a tourniquet. Methods Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent an eCTR between April 28, 2018, and December 31, 2019, by 1 of 2 fellowship-trained surgeons at our single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 3 groups: monitored anesthesia care with tourniquet (MT), local anesthesia with tourniquet (LT), and WALANT. Results Inclusion criteria were met by 156 cases; 53 (34%) were performed under MT, 25 (16%) under LT, and 78 (50%) under WALANT. The MT group (46.1 ± 9.7) was statistically younger compared with LT (56.3 ± 14.1, P = .007) and WALANT groups (53.5 ± 15.8, P = .008), F(2, 153) = 6.465, P = .002. Wide-awake, local anesthesia, no tourniquet had decreased procedural times (10 minutes, SD: 2) compared with MT (11 minutes, SD: 2) and LT (11 minutes, SD: 2), F(2, 153) = 5.732, P = .004). Trends favored WALANT over MT and LT for average operating room time (20 minutes, SD: 3 vs 32 minutes, SD: 6 vs 23 minutes, SD: 3, respectively, F(2, 153) = 101.1, P < .001), postanesthesia care unit time (12 minutes, SD: 7 vs 1:12 minutes, SD: 26 vs 20 minutes, SD: 22, respectively, F(2, 153) =171.1, P < .001), and door-to-door time (1:37 minutes, SD: 21 vs 2:51 minutes, SD: 40 vs 1:46 minutes, SD: 33, respectively, F(2, 153) = 109.3, P < .001). There were no differences in complication rates. Conclusions Our data suggest favorable trends for patients undergoing eCTR via WALANT versus MT versus LT.

scholarly journals Supraretinacular endoscopic carpal tunnel release: A safe alternative method for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 230949902199340
Author(s):  
Kotaro Sato ◽  
Kenya Murakami ◽  
Yoshikuni Mimata ◽  
Gaku Takahashi ◽  
Minoru Doita
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Median Nerve ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Flexor Retinaculum ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Surgery ◽  
Conversion Rates

Purpose: Supraretinacular endoscopic carpal tunnel release (SRECTR) is a technique in which an endoscope is inserted superficial to the flexor retinaculum through a subcutaneous tunnel. The benefits of this method include a clear view for the surgeon and absence of median nerve compression. Surgeons can operate with a familiar view of the flexor retinaculum and median nerve downward, similar to open surgery. This study aimed to investigate the learning curve for SRECTR, an alternate method for carpal tunnel release, and evaluate its complications and the functional outcomes using a disposable commercial kit. Methods: We examined the open conversion rates and complications associated with SRECTR in 200 consecutive patients performed by two surgeons. We compared the operative time operated by a single surgeon. We evaluated outcomes in 191 patients according to Kelly’s grading system. Patients’ mean follow-up period was 12.7 months. Results: Nine patients required conversion to open surgery. There were no injuries to the nerves and tendons and no hematoma or incomplete dissection of the flexor retinaculum. The operative times varied between 11 and 34 minutes. We obtained the following results based on Kelly’s grading of outcomes: excellent in 116, good in 59, fair in 13, and poor in 3 patients. Conclusions: We found no patients with neurapraxia, major nerve injury, flexor tendon injury, superficial palmar arch injury, and hematoma. Although there was a learning curve associated with SRECTR, we performed 200 consecutive cases without neurovascular complications. This method may be a safe alternative to minimally invasive carpal tunnel surgery.

Open vs Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release

Orthopedics ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 1025-1028
Author(s):  
Karen E Gibbs ◽  
William Rand ◽  
Leonard K Ruby
Keyword(s):  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document