ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Comparison of early clinical outcome in carpal tunnel release - mini-open technique with palmar incision vs. endoscopic technique with wrist crease incision.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Endoscopic Release for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine two techniques for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, mini-Open Carpal Tunnel Release (mini-OCTR) and Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release (ECTR), to compare their therapeutic efficacy.
methodsSixteen patients who underwent mini-OCTR in palmar incision and 17 patients who underwent ECTR in the wrist crease incision were included in the study. All patients presented preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively and were assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH). We also assessed the pain and cosmetic VAS of the entire affected hand or surgical wound, and the patient's satisfaction with the surgery.
resultsIn the objective evaluation, both surgical techniques showed improvement at 6 months postoperatively. The DASH score was significantly lower in the ECTR group (average = 3 months: 13.6, 6 months: 11.9) than in the mini-OCTR group (average = 3 months: 27.3, 6 months: 20.6) at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Also, the pain VAS score was significantly lower in the ECTR group (average = 17.1) than in the mini-OCTR group (average = 36.6) at 3 months postoperatively. The cosmetic VAS was significantly lower in the ECTR group (average = 1 month: 15.3, 3 months: 12.2, 6 months: 5.41) than in the mini-OCTR group (average = 1 month: 33.3, 3 months: 31.2, 6 months: 24.8) at all time points postoperatively. Patient satisfaction scores tended to be higher in the ECTR group (average = 3.3) compared to the mini-OCTR group (average = 2.7).
conclusionsECTR in wrist increase incision resulted in better pain and cosmetic recovery in an early postoperative phase compared with mini-OCTR in palmar incision. Our findings suggest that ECTR is an effective technique for patient satisfaction.
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.