ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021
Comparison of clinical outcomes between open and modified endoscopic release for carpal tunnel syndrome.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative assessment of seven surgical procedures in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: a network meta-analysis empowering physician-patient decision-making.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Safety and Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Endoscopic Release for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Carpal Tunnel Release Using a New Surgical Knife With and Without Ultrasound Guidance: Comparative Study in 100 Cadaveric Specimens.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Comparing the Efficacy of Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Repair Versus Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Novel minimally invasive carpal tunnel release using a specialized surgical kit: a prospective multi-center case series.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Complications.Cureus · 2024Review
- Surgical Interventions for the Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Open surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome: is it necessary to release the antebrachial fascia? A randomized clinical trial study.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate a novel technology, requiring only a single portal and no special equipment, to perform endoscopic treatment of carpal tunnel (CT) syndrome (CTS). This novel technique involves a surgical approach and standard operating procedures and is designed to minimize the potential for complications. Patients with CTS were randomly assigned using a computer-generated random allocation and stratified by site to either the modified endoscopic CT release (MECTR) group (n=48) or open CT release (OCTR) group (n=46). Various medical indexes were compared between the two groups, including operative time, hospitalization time, the time required to resume a normal life or work, intraoperative complications, incision infection rate, the amelioration of symptoms (Kelly grading), post-operative scar pain score, recovery of grip strength and pinch strength, two-point discrimination and the presence of sympathetic dystrophy. The results revealed that all patients had grade A wound healing and the symptoms were completely relieved. No significant differences were observed between the two groups with regards to the incision infection rate, intraoperative complications, grip strength, pinch strength, two-point discrimination, presence of sympathetic dystrophy and clinical symptom amelioration. In addition, compared with the OCTR group, the MECTR group had a decreased operative and hospitalization time, post-operative scar pain score and time required to resume a normal lifestyle. Post-operative electromyographic examination also revealed that the median nerve sensory conduction speed increased compared with that prior to surgery in both groups. In conclusion, the use of MECTR for the treatment of CTS achieved higher patient satisfaction, a shorter operative time and hospitalization time, an earlier return to work time or resumption of a normal life, as well as less post-operative scar pain compared with OCTR. Thus, these results suggested that MECTR may be an effective method for the treatment of idiopathic CTS. Trial registration no. ChiCTR2000041165, retrospectively registered 20th December 2020.
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.