Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25135849›Full record

SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2015

Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Eli T Sayegh, Robert J Strauch

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 98 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06902831 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Outcomes of Endoscopic and Open Carpal Tunnel Release with Neurotrophic Supplementation in Severe Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of BariRan2022 to 2024Enrolled497ConditionsCarpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS)ArmsEndoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release, Open carpal tunnel release, Neurotrophic supplementation
NCT07364604 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Very Early Outcomes in Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorStanford UniversityRan2022 to 2024Enrolled113ConditionsCarpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS)ArmsCarpal Tunnel Release
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

98 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 232 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Local corticosteroid injection versus surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Sickness absence after carpal tunnel release: a systematic review of the literature.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2018
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Similar effectiveness of the open versus endoscopic technique for carpal tunnel syndrome: a prospective randomized trial.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2015
    Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eli T SayeghDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, 622 West 168th Street, PH11-1119, New York, NY, 10032-3784, USA.
Robert J Strauch
Columbia University Irving Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time.

methodsThe English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included.

resultsEndoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03).

conclusionsHigh-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

Indexed as

Carpal Tunnel SyndromeDecompression, SurgicalHumansOrthopedic ProceduresSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25135849
PMCPMC4317413
OpenAlexW2005243474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.