ReviewCureus2024
Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Complications.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [Carpal tunnel release with ultrasound guidance : Efficacy and safety].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Pooled it
- Comparing Online Patient Searches About Carpal Tunnel Release Approaches: A Study on Modern Search Analytics.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release in 17,700 Obese Patients: A Propensity-matched Cohort Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis Versus Surgery for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advancements in Surgical Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Comparative Review of Open, Endoscopic, and Ultra-Minimally Invasive Techniques.Advances in orthopedics · 2026Review
- A comparative study of clinical efficacy, electrophysiological outcomes, and perioperative parameters between endoscopic carpal tunnel release and open carpal tunnel release for carpal tunnel syndrome.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Clemastine's Effects on Clinical and Electrodiagnostic Parameters in Individuals With CTS: A Preliminary Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind RCT.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes Following Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release With the Arthrex NanoScopic Release System-A Single Surgeon Experience.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Carpal Tunnel Release Using a New Surgical Knife With and Without Ultrasound Guidance: Comparative Study in 100 Cadaveric Specimens.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Impact of Perioperative Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists on Postoperative Outcomes Following Carpal Tunnel Release.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of a New Device-Assisted Mini-Incision Versus Conventional Surgery for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Retrospective Study of 109 Cases.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a condition that causes discomfort due to the compression of the median nerve in the wrist. Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is a surgical procedure that can help alleviate the symptoms of CTS. Two methods are commonly used for CTR: endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR). The choice of method can impact surgical outcomes and potential complications. This review aims to compare the outcomes of both methods for individuals diagnosed with CTS. This systematic review analyzes the outcomes and potential complications of ECTR and OCTR for CTS. The study encompassed a comprehensive analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses comparing both methods. We searched for studies released between January 2012 and October 2023 on PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. The researchers assessed the quality of studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool. The study's scope included a range of outcomes and complications, such as symptom relief, functional recovery, grip strength, return to work, patient satisfaction, scar sensitivity, pillar pain, wound complications, nerve-related issues, morphological changes, and recurrence. The review analyzed 11 studies, including seven RCTs and four meta-analyses. These studies evaluated 4367 ECTR and 4107 cases of OCTR. The patients' ages ranged from 46 to 58, and the follow-up periods ranged from three to 24 months. The findings reveal that ECTR has comparable or better outcomes than OCTR, particularly in postoperative discomfort, functional recovery, grip strength, resumption of work, and patient satisfaction. Additionally, ECTR has lower levels of scar sensitivity, pillar pain, and wound-related complications than OCTR. However, ECTR carries a higher risk of reversible nerve injury. There were no substantial differences between the two techniques regarding other potential complications. Both ECTR and OCTR are safe and effective interventions for CTS. ECTR has benefits like faster recovery and improved cosmetic outcomes but requires higher technical proficiency and carries the risk of nerve injury. The choice of technique should consider patient preference, cost-effectiveness, and surgeon expertise.
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.