ArticleScientific reports2022
Mini-open carpal tunnel release: technique, feasibility and clinical outcome compared to the conventional procedure in a long-term follow-up.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Carpal tunnel release with ultrasound guidance : Efficacy and safety].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Article
- Advancements in Surgical Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Comparative Review of Open, Endoscopic, and Ultra-Minimally Invasive Techniques.Advances in orthopedics · 2026Review
- Modified mini-open carpal tunnel release: A technical note with patient-reported and clinical outcomes.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Current Surgical Trends in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Endoscopic Release for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Article
- A Cost-Utility Analysis of Carpal Tunnel Release With Open, Endoscopic, and Ultrasound Guidance Techniques From a Societal Perspective.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- Clinical Results of Carpal Tunnel Release Using Ultrasound Guidance in Over 100 Patients at Two to Six Years.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- Comparison of early clinical outcome in carpal tunnel release - mini-open technique with palmar incision vs. endoscopic technique with wrist crease incision.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Long-Term Clinical Results of Carpal Tunnel Release Using Ultrasound Guidance: A Multicenter Pragmatic Study.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- Article
- Management of common conditions of the musician: a narrative review for plastic surgeons.Journal of plastic surgery and hand surgery · 2023Review
- Clinical Characteristics and Treatment of Adult Idiopathic Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Accompanied with Trigger Digit.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
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
We sought to evaluate the findings of our anatomically landmarks based mini-open procedure (MCTR) through a palmar approach and to compare its outcome and practicability to the conventional method (OCTR). The study consisted of 100 matched patients (n = 50 MCTR, n = 50 OCTR) with a minimum follow-up of three years. The outcome was characterized via the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH), Symptom Severity Scale (SSS), Functional Status Scale (FSC), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). All adverse events were observed. An alpha of 0.05 and a confidence level of 95% were set for statistical analyses. Both techniques showed comparable functional results in a long-term period (mean follow-up MCTR: 60 months and OCTR: 54 months). MCTR versus OCTR at mean: DASH: 4.6/8.3 (p = 0.398), SSS: 1.3/1.2 (p = 0.534), FSC: 1.3/1.2 (p = 0.617), VAS: 0.4/0.7 (p = 0.246). The MCTR convinced through a lower rate of scar sensibility (MCTR: 0% vs. OCTR: 12%, 0/50 vs. 6/50; p = 0.007) and pillar pain, as well as a shortened recovery period and surgical time relative to the OCTR. Low complication rates were observed in both groups, no recurrences had to be documented. The MCTR procedure revealed a similar good clinical outcome as the conventional technique. MCTR is a minimally-invasive, reliable, fast and simple procedure with an obvious benefit regarding scar sensibility.
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.