scholarly journals Predicting outcomes of conservative treatment for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: Group- and individual-based rehabilitation

2021 ◽  
pp. 156918612199793
Author(s):  
Mary ML Chu ◽  
Josephine Chan ◽  
Chetwyn CH Chan
Keyword(s):  
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Psychosocial Support ◽  
Binary Logistic Regression ◽  
Baseline Score ◽  
Intervention Programme ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Predicting Factors ◽  
Tunnel Syndrome ◽  
Programme Outcomes

Objective To identify predicting factors of treatment outcomes of a two stage group-based and then individual-based intervention programme for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods A prospective cohort study where patients diagnosed with CTS were recruited from an out-patient occupational therapy clinic to join the two-stage CTS programme. The Stage-One programme consisted of splinting and educational talks in a group format, while the Stage-Two programme consisted of four weekly individual sessions providing psychosocial support, reinforcing correct ergonomics and mobilization. Baseline assessment on six potential predicting factors and four outcome measures was done for all patients. Patients were re-assessed at the end of the Stage-One and the Stage-Two programme. Analysis was done by binary logistic regression adjusted for baseline covariates. Results One hundred and sixty-six patients completed the Stage-One programme and 46 patients also completed the Stage-Two programme. Results showed that the Chinese Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) baseline score was the only significant predictor for the Stage-One programme outcomes (AUC for ROC was 0.708) with an optimum cut-off score of 23.5. On the other hand, the Chinese QuickDASH baseline score was the only significant predictor for the Stage-Two programme outcomes (AUC for ROC was 0.801) with an optimum cut-off score of 27.4. Conclusions The significant predictor for the Stage One Programme was the Chinese SSS baseline score and that for the Stage Two Programme was the Chinese QuickDASH baseline score. The optimum cut-off scores identified may be applied clinically to guide client-centered treatment planning.

Clinical Update: Assessing Maximum Medical Improvement in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
James B. Talmage
Keyword(s):  
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Proper Time ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Hand Function ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Early Results ◽  
Medical Evaluation ◽  
Nerve Recovery ◽  
Tunnel Syndrome

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.

Clinical Update: Understanding Causation: An Example Using Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 5-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Mark Melhorn
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Medical Evidence ◽  
Anatomic Structure ◽  
Legal Professionals ◽  
Compensation Systems ◽  
Tunnel Syndrome ◽  
Four Levels

Abstract Medical evidence is drawn from observation, is multifactorial, and relies on the laws of probability rather than a single cause, but, in law, finding causation between a wrongful act and harm is essential to the attribution of legal responsibility. These different perspectives often result in dissatisfaction for litigants, uncertainty for judges, and friction between health care and legal professionals. Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) provides an example: Popular notions suggest that CTS results from occupational arm or hand use, but medical factors range from congenital or acquired anatomic structure, age, sex, and body mass index, and perhaps also involving hormonal disorders, diabetes, pregnancy, and others. The law separately considers two separate components of causation: cause in fact (a cause-and-effect relationship exists) and proximate or legal cause (two events are so closely related that liability can be attached to the first event). Workers’ compensation systems are a genuine, no-fault form of insurance, and evaluators should be aware of the relevant thresholds and legal definitions for the jurisdiction in which they provide an opinion. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment contains a large number of specific references and outlines the methodology to evaluate CTS, including both occupational and nonoccupational risk factors and assigning one of four levels of evidence that supports the conclusion.

Leitlinie Karpaltunnelsyndrom

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 54-54
Author(s):  
Arne Vielitz
Keyword(s):  
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Sensory Deficits ◽  
Hand Pain ◽  
Tunnel Syndrome

Erickson M, Lawrence M, Jansen CWS et al. Hand Pain and Sensory Deficits: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019; 49: CPG1–CPG85. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.0301

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document