Minimal clinically important difference is lower for carpal tunnel syndrome patients undergoing injection versus surgery

Repeated local corticosteroid injections have become a common mode of treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome, despite an existing recommendation that no more than three injections should be given. We studied the clinical outcomes in 254 patients who initially opted for a corticosteroid injection into their carpal canal during 2007. Follow-up records of treatment were obtained for 157 patients of whom 41% had proceeded to surgery by 2015. A mean of 1.9 injections had been given before surgery. In the unoperated group, a mean of two (range 0–12) further injections had been given. The final subjective severity and functional status scores measured using the Boston carpal tunnel questionnaire were significantly lower in the operated than in the unoperated group, but both groups improved significantly from baseline. The differences between the final scores are less than the estimated minimal clinically important difference for these measures. We conclude that repeated steroid injection may be a valid treatment option for some patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Level of evidence: III

Download Full-text

Clinical Update: Assessing Maximum Medical Improvement in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2003.julaug02 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2007.novdec02 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 12 (6) ◽

pp. 5-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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.

Download Full-text