Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40552065›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025

Comparing the Efficacy of Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Repair Versus Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

Yazeed A Almojel, Hussam A Alhathlol, Yazeed A Asery, Nawaf K Nahhas, Mohammed I Alhumaidan, Maan Almaghrabi, Mohammed D Alqarni, Alaa Alsahli, Turki S Alhassan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Current Surgical Trends in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026
    Article
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

9 authors.

Yazeed A AlmojelFrom the College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hussam A AlhathlolFrom the College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Yazeed A AseryFrom the College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Nawaf K NahhasFrom the College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed I AlhumaidanPlastic Surgery Department, NGHA-KAMC, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Maan AlmaghrabiPlastic Surgery Department, NGHA-KAMC, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed D AlqarniKing Fahad General Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Alaa AlsahliDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Turki S AlhassanPlastic Surgery Department, NGHA-KAMC, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Surgical decompression of carpal tunnel syndrome by the standard open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) technique was associated with postoperative pain and tenderness. Thus, the endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) has been introduced to reduce the complications of open surgery through a shorter incision to decrease scar pain and achieve rapid recovery. In this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes between OCTR and ECTR, according to randomized controlled trial evidence. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software. Standard mean difference and a 95% confidence interval were used for continuous outcomes, whereas odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were utilized for dichotomous outcomes. Results: A total of 34 studies were included. ECTR has shown significant lower rates of scar pain and significant shorter recovery compared OCRT. However, we could not find any significant difference between the groups in terms of complication rates, incidences of local pain, mean pain scores, subjective complete or near complete symptom relief rate, subjective complete satisfaction rate, mean satisfaction scores, mean scores of symptom severity, mean scores of functional status, and mean time of operation. Conclusions: Both ECTR and OCTR are safe and effective in management of carpal tunnel syndrome. However, ECTR may be slightly superior in terms of scar pain and postoperative recovery, although other factors not included in this study, including cost and convenience, must be considered.

Identifiers

PMID40552065
PMCPMC12185073

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.