ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Comparison of two skin closure techniques in open carpal tunnel release: a randomized controlled trial on postoperative pillar pain and scar quality.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. 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.
- Pillar pain after carpal tunnel release: an evidence-based review of pathophysiology, diagnostic strategies, and a structured clinical decision-making framework.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Psychometric Validation of the Persian Version of the Patient-Rated Ulnar Nerve Evaluation (PRUNE).The archives of bone and joint 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pillar pain and scar-related discomfort are common complications following open carpal tunnel release (CTR). While surgical approaches have been widely studied, the influence of skin closure techniques on postoperative pillar pain remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the effect of two different skin closure methods, subcuticular absorbable monocryl sutures versus interrupted non-absorbable nylon sutures, on postoperative pillar pain and scar quality. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 128 patients who underwent open carpal tunnel release by a single surgeon were randomly assigned to one of the two groups using a computer-generated randomization sequence. Group 1 received subcuticular monocryl closure, while Group 2 received interrupted nylon sutures. Patients were evaluated at 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pillar pain and the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) for scar evaluation. Results: Patients in the monocryl group reported significantly lower VAS scores for pillar pain at 6 weeks ( Conclusion: Skin closure techniques may significantly affect early postoperative outcomes in CTR. Subcuticular monocryl sutures were associated with reduced pillar pain and improved scar quality in the early recovery phase, suggesting their potential advantage over conventional nylon sutures.
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.