ArticleJAMA network open2024
Revision Carpal Tunnel Release Following Endoscopic Compared With Open Decompression.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Mechanism-Based Classification and Review of Endoscopic and Ultrasound-Guided Carpal Tunnel Release.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release in Obese and Nonobese Patients.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis Versus Surgery for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Unexpected detection of clear cell sarcoma of soft tissue during single-channel endoscopic carpal tunnel release for recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome: a case report with literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 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
- Wide-awake local anaesthesia in bilateral endoscopic carpal tunnel release Surgery: An efficient ergonomic approach.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Review
- Altered patterns in the prefrontal cortex and limbic system in female patients with neuropathic pain secondary to recurrent median nerve entrapment post carpal tunnel release.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Mechanomyography as a novel marker of nerve dysfunction and recovery in chronic entrapment neuropathy.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Carpal tunnel release (CTR) technique may influence the likelihood of revision surgery. Prior studies of revision CTR following endoscopic CTR (ECTR) compared with open CTR (OCTR) have been limited by sample size and duration of follow-up. Objective: To estimate the incidence of revision CTR following ECTR compared with OCTR in a national cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the US Veterans Health Administration. Participants included all adults (age ≥18 years) undergoing at least 1 outpatient CTR from October 1, 1999, to May 20, 2021. Data were analyzed from May 21, 2021, to November 27, 2023. Exposure: Index CTR technique. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to revision CTR, defined as repeat ipsilateral CTR during the study period. Secondary outcomes were indications for revision, findings during revision, and additional procedures performed during revision. Results: Among 134 851 wrists from 103 455 patients (92 510 [89.4%] male; median [IQR] age, 62 [53-70] years) undergoing at least 1 CTR, 1809 wrists underwent at least 1 revision at a median (IQR) of 2.5 (1.0-3.8) years. In competing-risks analysis, the cumulative incidence of revision was 1.06% (95% CI, 0.99%-1.12%) at 5 years and 1.59% (95% CI, 1.51%-1.67%) at 10 years. ECTR was associated with increased hazard of revision CTR compared with OCTR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.34-1.81; P < .001). The risk difference for revision CTR associated with ECTR compared with OCTR was 0.57% (95% CI, 0.31%-0.84%) at 5 years (number needed to harm, 176) and 0.72% (95% CI, 0.36%-1.07%) at 10 years (number needed to harm, 139). Regardless of index CTR technique, the most common indication for revision was symptom recurrence (1062 wrists [58.7%]). A reconstituted transverse carpal ligament (TCL) was more common after ECTR compared with OCTR, whereas scarring of the overlying tissues and of the median nerve itself were more common following OCTR. Incomplete transverse-carpal-ligament release was observed in 251 of the wrists undergoing revision CTR (13.94%) and was more common among revisions following ECTR (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.11-2.37; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of revision CTR in the Veterans Health Administration, ECTR was associated with increased risk of revision compared with OCTR, but the absolute risk was low regardless of technique. Intraoperative findings at revision varied significantly according to index CTR technique.
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.