ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2021
Effectiveness of mini-transverse incision versus traditional reduced technique in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. A prospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A comparative meta-analysis between mini-transverse and longitudinal techniques in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome.Surgical neurology international · 2025Review
- Article
- Open surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome: is it necessary to release the antebrachial fascia? A randomized clinical trial study.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- A comparative meta-analysis of mini-transverse versus longitudinal techniques in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.Surgical neurology international · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome has attracted attention as an occupational disease due to the dramatic increase on its magnitude, and its prevalence in the general population, who's has been reported from a 0.6 to 3.4%. Currently, there are various techniques for its approach. However, there is great controversy when it comes to establishing which of the methods is the most beneficial. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of the mini-transverse incision against the traditional longitudinal technique in treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. MATERIALS AND
methodsA series of cases is presented, prospectively included, of patients with a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome, who are beneficiaries of a government hospital. We present a series of cases with a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome, which were performed with two different techniques. Both techniques were evaluated by comparing the recovery and work reintegration times, as well as the decrease in pain and the absence of complications.
resultsA total of 8 patients operated with a minimal incision and 9 with a traditional reduced incision were studied. Significant differences were shown in the days taken to return to work, with a median of 17.5 (q25-q75 14-21) days for mini-transverse incision group and of 28 (q25-q75 21-28) days for the longitudinal traditional incision group (p = 0.002). Likewise, differences were obtained in the visual analogue pain scale during the first week of evaluation 4 vs 7 (p = 0.000), in contrast to complications where there were no differences at all.
conclusionThe results obtained corroborate a greater efficacy of the mini-transverse incision technique, in reducing disability times. This favors the health institution to reduce the costs of rehabilitation and for the patient to have a prompt work reintegration. It is suggested to strengthen the scientific evidence that supports the use of this technique by exploring other areas such as functional status or long-term benefits.
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.