Revision Surgery for Failed Carpal Tunnel Release

2012 ◽  
Vol 130 (6) ◽  
pp. 898e-899e
Author(s):  
Stefano Lucchina ◽  
Cesare Fusetti
2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. STÜTZ ◽  
A. GOHRITZ ◽  
J. VAN SCHOONHOVEN ◽  
U. LANZ

Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is regarded as a common and successful operative procedure in hand surgery. However, an increasing number of patients with complications have been referred to our hospital. This retrospective investigation was undertaken to clarify the reasons for persisting or recurrent symptoms in 200 patients who underwent secondary exploration during a 26 month period at a single institution. In 108 cases, the flexor retinaculum was found to have been released incompletely. In 12 patients, a nerve laceration had occurred during the primary intervention. In 46 patients, symptoms were due to the nerve being tethered in scar tissue. The re-exploration revealed circumferential fibrosis around and within the median nerve in 17 patients and a tumour in the carpal tunnel in four patients. In 13 patients, no specific reason was found for recurrence of symptoms. We conclude that CTR seems to be a widely underestimated procedure and revision surgery could be largely avoided by reducing technical errors during the primary operation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 735-742
Author(s):  
Abdus S. Burahee ◽  
Andrew D. Sanders ◽  
Dominic M. Power

Cubital tunnel decompression is a commonly performed operation with a much higher failure rate than carpal tunnel release. Failed cubital tunnel release generally occurs due to an inadequate decompression in the primary procedure, new symptoms due to an iatrogenic cause, or development of new areas of nerve irritation. Our preferred technique for failed release is revision circumferential neurolysis with medial epicondylectomy, as this eliminates strain, removes the risk of subluxation, and avoids the creation of secondary compression points. Adjuvant techniques including supercharging end-to-side nerve transfer and nerve wrapping show promise in improving the results of revision surgery. Limited quality research exists in this subject, compounded by the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria, classification, and outcome assessment. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:735-742. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200135


PM&R ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. S133-S133
Author(s):  
Faguna Patel ◽  
Qiang G. Fang ◽  
John M. Ventrudo

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
James B. Talmage

Abstract Permanent impairment cannot be assessed until the patient is at maximum medical improvement (MMI), but the proper time to test following carpal tunnel release often is not clear. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) states: “Factors affecting nerve recovery in compression lesions include nerve fiber pathology, level of injury, duration of injury, and status of end organs,” but age is not prognostic. The AMA Guides clarifies: “High axonotmesis lesions may take 1 to 2 years for maximum recovery, whereas even lesions at the wrist may take 6 to 9 months for maximal recovery of nerve function.” The authors review 3 studies that followed patients’ long-term recovery of hand function after open carpal tunnel release surgery and found that estimates of MMI ranged from 25 weeks to 24 months (for “significant improvement”) to 18 to 24 months. The authors suggest that if the early results of surgery suggest a patient's improvement in the activities of daily living (ADL) and an examination shows few or no symptoms, the result can be assessed early. If major symptoms and ADL problems persist, the examiner should wait at least 6 to 12 months, until symptoms appear to stop improving. A patient with carpal tunnel syndrome who declines a release can be rated for impairment, and, as appropriate, the physician may wish to make a written note of this in the medical evaluation report.


Swiss Surgery ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 181-185
Author(s):  
Buchli ◽  
Scharplatz

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document