ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2024
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release With Monitored Anesthesia Care Versus Local Anesthesia: Analysis of Operative Times and Patient-Reported Outcomes.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost Analysis of Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release with MAC versus Local Anesthesia.Journal of wrist surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most common peripheral nerve compressive neuropathy in clinical practice. Patients who fail nonsurgical management are indicated for carpal tunnel release (CTR), which can be performed open or endoscopically. Efforts have been made to utilize local anesthesia instead of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for endoscopic release. This study seeks to compare perioperative surgical times and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic CTR with local anesthesia versus MAC. Methods: This is a 6-year retrospective study of 1,036 patients undergoing isolated endoscopic CTR with MAC (n = 607) versus local (n = 429) anesthesia within an outpatient surgical center. A combination of chi-square and Results: The local cohort demonstrated significantly shorter postoperative time to discharge (15.9 ± 9.8 vs 53.8 ± 11.0 minutes; Conclusions: Patients within the MAC cohort demonstrated longer postoperative time to discharge and total time in the surgical center. The MAC cohort had longer operating room and tourniquet time, albeit not clinically significant. Surgical complications and PROMIS scores were similar between the two groups. Our findings suggest that local anesthesia is a safe and effective option for endoscopic CTR and may offer advantages in cost and convenience for patients. Type of study/level of evidence: Retrospective cohort study/therapeutic III.
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.