Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40071930›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2025

Network meta-analysis comparing WALANT, locoregional, local and general anesthesia techniques in carpal tunnel release.

Laurentiu-Cosmin Focsa, Pierre-Alban Bouché, Thomas Apard, Daphné Querel, Marc-Antoine Rousseau, Jules Descamps

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Laurentiu-Cosmin Focsa
Pierre-Alban Bouché
Thomas Apard
Daphné Querel
Marc-Antoine Rousseau

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To compare anesthesia techniques (WALANT (wide-awake anesthesia no tourniquet), locoregional anesthesia, local anesthesia with tourniquet or sedation) for carpal tunnel release (CTR). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to May 2023. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted the data. The primary outcomes included the pain experienced at the moment of anesthesia and during the surgery and the mean morphine equivalents (MME) administered following the surgery and overall patient satisfaction. Our secondary outcomes consisted of the mean room occupancy time and the mean duration of the procedure, followed by the complication rate. The review process was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 3166 studies were identified, which included 23 studies comparing various anesthesia types and 28,748 CTR surgeries. The WALANT group experienced significantly lower pain levels during anesthesia (-2.67 (95% CIs: 0.12-4.99)) and surgery (-2.04 (95% CIs: 0.08-4.07)) compared to the local anesthesia group. There was no difference in the use of MME for pain relief among different anesthesia techniques. Satisfaction rates were comparable, but WALANT exhibited the highest probability for utmost satisfaction. The mean room occupancy time was lower in patients receiving local anesthesia compared with when sedation was added, with a mean difference of -27.16 (95% CIs: -52.03 to -1.85). Conclusions: The WALANT technique for CTR reported better outcomes for pain (during anesthesia and surgery), higher satisfaction and low probability to expand the operating room occupancy time. Level of evidence: Level II of evidence.

Indexed as

carpal tunnel syndromelocal anesthesianetwork meta-analysisWALANT

Identifiers

PMID40071930
PMCPMC11728873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.