Complications of endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release.

Separate questionnaires regarding surgically treated complications of endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release over a 5-year period were sent to members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand to assess and compare major complications of the 2 procedures. Four hundred fifty-five major complications from endoscopic carpal tunnel release were treated by the 708 respondents. This included 100 median nerve lacerations, 88 ulnar nerve lacerations, 77 digital nerve lacerations, 121 vessel lacerations, and 69 tendon lacerations. There were 283 major complications from open carpal tunnel release treated by 616 respondents, including 147 median nerve lacerations, 29 ulnar nerve lacerations, 54 digital nerve lacerations, 34 vessel lacerations, and 19 tendon lacerations. Although this is a retrospective voluntary study with resultant methodologic flaws, the data support the conclusion that carpal tunnel release, be it endoscopic or open, is not a safe and simple procedure. Major, if not devastating, complications can and do occur with both procedures, of which surgeons should be ever cautious.     

A local anaesthetic technique for endoscopic carpal tunnel release.

A local anaesthetic technique for endoscopic carpal tunnel release is described. This accurately and rapidly blocks median and ulnar nerves in the distal forearm. It avoids the infiltration of local anaesthetic solution at the operation site, a technique which may render the endoscopic view unsatisfactory.     

Outcomes of open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a meta-analysis

Background

Currently, there are two genres of surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome, open versus endoscopic. The goal of our study is to analyze published data by comparing outcomes of surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome and determine if one approach is superior to the other (open versus endoscopic).

Methods

A meta-analysis of retrospective series of Carpal tunnel release including >20 patients, with results measuring outcomes based on at least six of the following nine parameters (paresthesia relief, scar tenderness, two-point discrimination, thenar muscle weakness, Semmes–Weinstein/SW monofilament testing, return to work time, grip and pinch strength, and complications).

Results

Endoscopic carpal tunnel approach showed statistically superior outcomes in eight of the nine categories investigated. Only in the category of complications (mean occurrence of 1.2 % in the open release versus 2.2 % in the endoscopic release group) was the endoscopic group inferior.

Conclusion

This suggests that the endoscopic release is superior to the open release, particularly in experienced hands.     

A cost-utility analysis of open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release

BACKGROUND

Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) is the standard procedure for the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. With the advent of minimally invasive surgery, endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) was introduced.

OBJECTIVE

To use a decision analytical model to compare ECTR with OCTR in an economic evaluation.

METHODS

Direct medical costs were obtained from a Canadian university hospital. Utility values obtained from experts, presented with carpal tunnel syndrome outcome health states, were transformed into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The probabilities of the health states associated with both techniques were obtained from the literature.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $124,311.32/QALY gained, providing strong evidence to reject ECTR when ECTR is performed in the main operating room and OCTR is performed in the day surgery unit. A one-way sensitivity analysis in the present study demonstrated that when both OCTR and ECTR are performed in day surgery unit, the ICUR falls in the ‘win-win’ quadrant, making ECTR both more effective and less costly than OCTR. If the scar tenderness probability is decreased in the ECTR group in a second one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICUR decreases to $100,621.91/QALY gained, providing evidence to reject ECTR. If the reflex sympathetic dystrophy probability is increased in the ECTR group in a third one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICUR increases to $202,657.88/QALY gained, providing strong evidence to reject ECTR.

CONCLUSIONS

There is still uncertainty associated with the costs and effectiveness of ECTR and OCTR. To obtain a definitive answer as to whether the ECTR is more effective than the OCTR, it is necessary to perform a large, randomized, controlled trial in which the utilities and resource use are measured prospectively.     

Mini open carpal tunnel release

Release of the flexor retinaculum to decompress the median nerve is the most common surgical procedure in the hand, and the numbers continue to rise. The surgical intent is simple: cut the retinaculum only. Like most procedures so designed, the results are generally thought to be excellent. However, with the rising incidence of this problem in the workforce and the postoperative time loss, great effort has been directed to defining a less invasive surgery that would satisfactorily decompress the nerve but allow a speedier recovery and return to work. Thus, there have evolved various offshoot types of carpal tunnel releases: endoscopic and mini open. Each method has proponents and variations and generally yields very satisfactory results. However, without care, there may be more surgical complications, and we may not have effectively shortened the return to work time. Caution is the key. With careful attention to detail during the procedure, however, mini open carpal tunnel releases can provide a safe, effective, and minimally invasive method for accomplishing this frequent task. Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand     

关节镜和开放手术治疗腕管综合征相关并发症的系统评价

[目的]比较关节镜和开放手术治疗腕管综合征的并发症差异,系统评价两种术式的安全性。[方法]收集双切口关节镜和开放手术治疗腕管综合征的随机对照试验,评价纳入研究的方法学质量并进行数据分析。采用Rev-Man5.0.1进行Meta分析。[结果]纳入9个随机对照试验,共855例手术,关节镜组465例,开放手术组380例。Meta分析显示两组在并发症总发生率、术中损伤率、切口并发症率和再次手术率等方面无统计学差异,但前者术后神经并发症的发生率明显高于后者(RR=2.90,95%CI[1.19,7.07],P=0.02)。[结论]关节镜组的术后神经并发症发生率高于开放手术组,多为术中牵拉损伤所致,严重的神经并发症的发生率差别不大。开放手术仍是较可靠的治疗选择。但还需开展更多高质量、大样本的随机对照试验以增加证据的强度。     

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release for recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome after previous open release.

Recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome from various causes has been shown to occur in up to 19% of patients. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release has been used to decompress the median nerve in carpal tunnel syndrome for many years. However, endoscopic release for recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome after previous surgical release has not been reported. Nine hands in six patients had recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome five to 20 years after previous open carpal tunnel release. All the cases were successfully treated with endoscopic release.     

Early recovery after endoscopic vs. short-incision open carpal tunnel release

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release has been claimed to offer improvement in recovery time and postoperative discomfort over open carpal tunnel release. Short-incision open carpal tunnel release has been claimed to offer recoveries comparable with endoscopic techniques. Patients receiving carpal tunnel surgery were randomized to short-incision open release or single-portal endoscopic release. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation included grip and pinch strength measurements and patient completion of a questionnaire regarding symptoms and function. Thirty-six operated hands completed evaluation, including 22 endoscopic and 14 open releases. Early grip and pinch strength after endoscopic carpal tunnel release were improved significantly over short-incision open release (p < 0.05). Subjective evaluation indicated a trend toward improved symptoms and function with endoscopic over short-incision open carpal tunnel release. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release provides faster recovery of strength than short-incision open carpal tunnel release and improves early postoperative comfort and function to a small degree.     

Single-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release compared with open release : a prospective,randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common condition causing hand pain and numbness. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release has been demonstrated to reduce recovery time, although previous studies have raised concerns about an increased rate of complications. The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to compare open carpal tunnel release with single-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, multicenter center study was performed on 192 hands in 147 patients. The open method was performed in ninety-five hands in seventy-two patients, and the endoscopic method was performed in ninety-seven hands in seventy-five patients. All of the patients had clinical signs or symptoms and electrodiagnostic findings consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome and had not responded to, or had refused, nonoperative management. Follow-up evaluations with use of validated outcome instruments and quantitative measurements of grip strength, pinch strength, and hand dexterity were performed at two, four, eight, twelve, twenty-six, and fifty-two weeks after the surgery. Complications were identified. The cost of the procedures and the time until return to work were recorded and compared between the groups. RESULTS: During the first three months after surgery, the patients treated with the endoscopic method had better Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Symptom Severity Scores, better Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Functional Status Scores, and better subjective satisfaction scores. During the first three months after surgery, they also had significantly (p < 0.05) greater grip strength, pinch strength, and hand dexterity. The open technique resulted in greater scar tenderness during the first three months after surgery as well as a longer time until the patients could return to work (median, thirty-eight days compared with eighteen days after the endoscopic release). No technical problems with respect to nerve, tendon, or artery injuries were noted in either group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications or the cost of surgery between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Good clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction are achieved more quickly when the endoscopic method of carpal tunnel release is used. Single-portal endoscopic surgery is a safe and effective method of treating carpal tunnel syndrome.     

Anthropometry and endoscopic carpal tunnel release

A prospective study was performed in 100 consecutive endoscopic carpal tunnel releases (ECTR) to assess the effect of a number of anthropometric measures on the ease of introduction of the ECTR system into the carpal tunnel. Ease of access to the carpal tunnel correlated with the wrist circumference, height and age of patients. Surgeons should be aware that ECTR is likely to be more difficult in small patients with small wrists and should have a higher threshold for conversion to the open technique to avoid neurological complications.     

Locally made instruments for endoscopic carpal tunnel release

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) was introduced into Thailand when this technique became widely accepted. However, the technique was limited to only a few institutions because of the training required and the very high cost of the instruments. Because of the economic crisis in Thailand, most hospitals in the public health ministry had no budget to invest in new instruments. However, new technology cannot be ignored so the authors modified some unused instruments in conjunction with an arthroscope in order to perform ECTR. A 5 cm by 4 mm slot was made at the mid-portion of an old unused 5 mm arthroscopic sheath. One end of this sheath was reshaped to fit the meniscectomy hook blade. A 4.5 mm Steinmann pin was reshaped to be the obturator of the arthroscopic sheath. ECTR was performed with this instrument in conjunction with an arthroscope (modified from Chow's 2-portals technique). The transverse carpal ligament was clearly viewed and identified, and the transverse carpal ligament was completely divided by the menisectomy hook blade. The operation time was 10 to 20 minutes. 30 patients received ECTR with this set of instruments, and they were completely relieved from the symptoms and returned to work early without any complications. The advantages of this instrument are that it is very cheap, it has a low learning curve, and it is safe and effective.     

内窥镜与常规开放手术治疗腕管综合征的疗效比较

目的对比研究内窥镜视下腕管松解术（endoscopic carpal tunnel release,ECTR）与常规腕管切开术（open carpal tunnel release,OCTR）治疗腕管综合征的临床疗效。方法对44例腕管综合征的患者，根据手术不同分为两组：ECTR组14例，OCTR组30例。观察术后患手创面愈合、瘢痕生长情况，“柱状”痛并发症的发生率，恢复工作时间和电生理检测等情况。结果术后随访时间为8～214个月，平均15．5个月。两组患者均未出现伤口感染及肌腱、神经、血管损伤等并发症。术后半年两组夜间疼痛症状全部消失，ECTR组和OCTR组手指麻木消失率分别为93．75％和91．18％，拇短展肌萎缩恢复率分别为57．14％和58．82％；“柱状”痛发生率分别为0％和23．53％，满意率分别为93．75％和67．65％，两组差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；术后1、3、6、12个月握力恢复率，ECTR组较OCTR组明显提高，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；正中神经电生理检测两组差异无统计学意义。ECTR组在手术时间、恢复工作和住院时间均较OCTR组缩短。结论术后ECTR组在切口愈合较常规切开者美观、无“柱状”痛、握力恢复、缩短手术时间、平均住院日及恢复工作时间等方面优于OCTR组。