Open versus Single- or Dual-Portal Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

backgroundCompared to the traditional open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), the additional safety and efficacy benefits of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of ECTR versus conventional OCTR as well as determine if a difference exists between the 2 most common endoscopic techniques: the single-portal and the dual-portal endoscopic technique.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and the CENTRAL. Additional articles were identified by handsearching reference lists. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of ECTR with OCTR technique. Outcomes assessed included length of surgery, patient reported symptom and functional measures, time to return to work, and complications. A sub-group analysis was performed to indirectly compare single- versus dual-portal endoscopic approaches. Statistical analysis was performed via a random-effects model using Review Manager 5 Software.

resultsA meta-analysis of 23 studies revealed a significantly higher incidence of transient postoperative nerve injury with ECTR, regardless of the number of portals, as compared with OCTR, although overall complication and re-operation rates were equivalent. Scar tenderness was significantly diminished with dual-portal endoscopic release when compared to single-portal and open methods. The rates of pillar pain, symptom relief, and patient reported satisfaction did not differ significantly between treatment groups.

conclusionsAlthough endoscopic surgery may be appealing in terms of reduced postoperative morbidity and a faster return to work for patients, surgeons should be mindful of the associated learning curve and higher incidence of transient nerve injury. Further study is required to identify if an advantage exists between different endoscopic techniques.