SynthesisMedicine2019
The comparison of limited-incision versus standard-incision in treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Carpal tunnel release with ultrasound guidance : Efficacy and safety].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Pooled it
- Quality analysis of prior systematic reviews of carpal tunnel syndrome: an overview of the literature.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2022Pooled it
- Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Pooled it
- Short incision versus minimally invasive surgery with tool-kit for carpal tunnel syndrome release: a prospective randomized control trial to evaluate the anterior wrist pain and time to return to work or activities.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Trial
- Macroscopic comparison of open Metzenbaum and ultrasound-guided fasciotomy techniques for surgical treatment of the hindlimb proximal suspensory ligament desmopathy in horses: A cadaveric anatomical study.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2026Article
- Assessing surgical trauma in robot-assisted pelvic fracture fixation: the role of the systemic immune-inflammatory index.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Best-Evidence Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mini-Open Carpal Tunnel Release.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- Correlation between Inflammatory Systemic Biomarkers and Surgical Trauma in Elderly Patients with Hip Fractures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Understanding the Learning Curve of Carpal Tunnel Release With Ultrasound Guidance: A Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- The Value of Preoperative Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index as a Predictor of Prolonged Hospital Stay in Orthopedic Surgery: A Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. Compared with standard release, the efficacy, safety, and postoperative complications of limited carpal tunnel release remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of the 2 treatments.
methodsThe English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials that compared standard and limited incision for carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Strength, interval to return to activities, the rate of adverse events, effectiveness, and operative time were compared.
resultsThirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) containing 1020 patients were included. Limited incision treated patients showed better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 4.25 [0.86-7.65]; P = .01) and pinch strength (MD, 1.37 [0.24-2.51]; P = .02) but no advantage after more than 6 months. Patients treated with limited incision showed an earlier return to activities (MD,-8.80 [-9.21 to -8.39]; P < .01) and reduced operative time (standardized mean difference [SMD], -1.68 [-3.24 to-0.12]; P = .04). The rate of adverse event was significantly higher in standard group compared with that in limited group (risk ratio [RR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.38-0.96, P = .03).
conclusionsLimited incision release allows us to return to activities early, reduces operative time, decreases rate of adverse events, and improves strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or longer are similar according to current data. However, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity amongst the included studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.