scholarly journals Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yueying Li ◽  
Wenqi Luo ◽  
Guangzhi Wu ◽  
Shusen Cui ◽  
Zhan Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Open Versus

scholarly journals Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yueying Li ◽  
Wenqi Luo ◽  
Guangzhi Wu ◽  
Shusen Cui ◽  
Xiaossong Gu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Nerve Injury ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Satisfaction Rates

Abstract Background Endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) both have advantages and disadvantages for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We compared the effectiveness and safety of ECTR and OCTR based on evidence from a high-level randomized controlled trial. MethodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Medline to identify relevant articles published until August 2019. Data regarding operative time, grip strength, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire scores, digital sensation, patient satisfaction, key pinch strength, return to work time, and complications were extracted and compared. All mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were expressed as ECTR relative to OCTR. Results Twenty-eight studies were included in our meta-analysis. ECTR was associated with significantly higher satisfaction rates (MD, 3.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43 to 4.82; P = 0.0003), greater key pinch strengths (MD, 0.79 kg; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.32; P = 0.003), earlier return to work times (MD, -7.25 days; 95% CI, -14.31 to -0.19; P = 0.04), higher transient nerve injury rates (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.37 to 17.25; P = 0.01), and a lower incidence of scar-related complications (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.59; P = 0.004). There were no significant differences between the two methods in terms of permanent nerve injury (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.58 to 6.40; P = 0.28). Conclusions Overall, evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that ECTR results in better recovery of daily life functions than OCTR, as revealed by higher satisfaction rates, greater key pinch strengths, earlier return to work times, and fewer scar-related complications. Our findings suggest that patients with CTS can be effectively managed with ECTR.

scholarly journals Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yueying Li ◽  
Wenqi Luo ◽  
Guangzhi Wu ◽  
Shusen Cui ◽  
Zhan Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Nerve Injury ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release ◽  
Satisfaction Rates

Abstract Background: Endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) both have advantages and disadvantages for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We compared the effectiveness and safety of ECTR and OCTR based on evidence from a high-level randomized controlled trial. Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Medline to identify relevant articles published until August 2019. Data regarding operative time, grip strength, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire scores, digital sensation, patient satisfaction, key pinch strength, return to work time, and complications were extracted and compared. All mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were expressed as ECTR relative to OCTR. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included in our meta-analysis. ECTR was associated with significantly higher satisfaction rates (MD, 3.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43 to 4.82; P = 0.0003), greater key pinch strengths (MD, 0.79 kg; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.32; P = 0.003), earlier return to work times (MD, -7.25 days; 95% CI, -14.31 to -0.19; P = 0.04), higher transient nerve injury rates (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.37 to 17.25; P = 0.01), and a lower incidence of scar-related complications (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.59; P = 0.004). There were no significant differences between the two methods in terms of permanent nerve injury (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.58 to 6.40; P = 0.28). Conclusions: Overall, evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that ECTR results in better recovery of daily life functions than OCTR, as revealed by higher satisfaction rates, greater key pinch strengths, earlier return to work times, and fewer scar-related complications. Our findings suggest that patients with CTS can be effectively managed with ECTR.

Milligan–Morgan (Open) Versus Ferguson Haemorrhoidectomy (Closed): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Randomized, Controlled Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 1509-1519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad I. Bhatti ◽  
Muhammad Shafique Sajid ◽  
Mirza K. Baig
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Open Versus

scholarly journals Ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fu-An Yang ◽  
Ya-Chu Shih ◽  
Jia-Pei Hong ◽  
Chin-Wen Wu ◽  
Chun-De Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Corticosteroid Injection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Tunnel Syndrome

Abstract Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) refers to the symptoms and signs caused by the compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel. It can be treated by corticosteroid injection into the carpal tunnel. Two methods for injection have been employed, namely ultrasound-guided and landmark-guided injection. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare these methods in terms of several outcomes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, and data collection was completed on 7 October 7, 2020. Results for continuous variables are expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software. The analysis included eight RCTs published between 2013 and 2019 with a total of 448 patients. Ultrasound-guided injection yielded more favorable results for the Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire, Symptom Severity Scale [SMD = −0.49, 95% CI (−0.74, −0.25), P < 0.0001], Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire, Functional Status Scale [SMD = −0.24, 95% CI (−0.42, −0.06), P = 0.01], distal motor latency [SMD = −0.36, 95% CI (−0.70, −0.02), P = 0.04], and compound muscle action potential [SMD = 0.38, 95% CI (0.16, 0.61), P = 0.0008] . Ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection is recommended for patients with CTS.

scholarly journals Ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fu-An Yang ◽  
Ya-Chu Shih ◽  
Jia-Pei Hong ◽  
Chin-Wen Wu ◽  
Chun-De Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Corticosteroid Injection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Tunnel Syndrome

AbstractCarpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) refers to the symptoms and signs caused by the compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel. It can be treated by corticosteroid injection into the carpal tunnel. Two methods for injection have been employed, namely ultrasound-guided and landmark-guided injection. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare these methods in terms of several outcomes. A search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases was performed from the date of their inception to October 7, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results for continuous variables are expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software. The analysis included eight RCTs published between 2013 and 2019 with a total of 448 patients. Ultrasound-guided injection yielded more favorable results than landmark-guided injection for the Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire, Symptom Severity Scale [SMD =  − 0.43, 95% CI (− 0.68, − 0.19), P = 0.0005] and Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire, Functional Status Scale [SMD =  − 0.50, 95% CI (− 0.84, − 0.15), P = 0.005]. Ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection is recommended for patients with CTS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document