Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel decompression
- 835 Downloads
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) using a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials.
Materials and methods
Electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 11 of 12, Nov 2012), PUBMED (1980 to Dec 2012), and EMBASE (1980 to Dec 2012) were used to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated endoscopic vs open methods for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Studies to be used were independently identified by two researchers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.
Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving 1,596 hands were included. Based on the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias, four studies were rated as high quality, five studies were rated as moderate quality, and six were rated as low quality. Our meta-analysis indicated that ECTR resulted in better recovery of pinch strength, earlier time of return to work, but a higher rate of reversible nerve problems (including neurapraxia and numbness) than OCTR. ECTR also resulted in a lower rate of irreversible nerve damage (P > 0.05), wound problems (including wound infection, wound hematoma and wound dehiscence) and reflex sympathetic dystrophy (P > 0.05) compared with OCTR. Our meta-analysis revealed no obvious statistical differences in relief of symptoms (pain and paraesthesia), recovery of grip strength and reoperation rate.
Our meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials demonstrated that ECTR and OCTR were similar in relief of symptoms, but ECTR resulted in better recovery of function and earlier return to work and was safer than OCTR.
KeywordsCarpal tunnel syndrome Effectiveness Endoscopic carpal tunnel release Meta-analysis Open carpal tunnel release Safety
- 7.Scholten RJ et al (2007) Surgical treatment options for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 17(4)Google Scholar
- 15.Brown RA et al (1993) Carpal tunnel release. A prospective, randomized assessment of open and endoscopic methods. J Bone Jt Surg Am 75(9):1265–1275Google Scholar
- 17.Dumontier C, et al (1995) Early results of conventional versus two-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release—a prospective study. J Hand Surg 20B(5):658–662Google Scholar
- 23.Trumble TE et al (2002) Single-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release compared with open release: a prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 84(7):1107–1115Google Scholar
- 24.Eichhorn J, Dieterich K (2003) Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release. Results of a prospective study. Chirurgische Praxis 61(2):279–283Google Scholar
- 26.Saw NLB, et al (2003) Early outcome and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release: a randomized prospective trial. J Hand Surg 28B(5):444–449Google Scholar
- 32.Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration http://www.cochrane-handbook.org