ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2026
Carpal Tunnel Release: A Four-Specialty Comparison Demonstrating Equal Clinical and Economic Efficacy.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Carpal tunnel release (CTR), the most common hand surgery procedure in the United States, is routinely performed by orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons, plastic surgeons, and general surgeons. There is limited literature comparing clinical costs and research utilization among specialties. This study sought to determine treatment utilization, variations in cases, and cost trends among orthopedic, plastic, general, and neurosurgeons. Methods: A national insurance database was queried for patients who underwent open or endoscopic CTR between the years 2007 and 2022. Four cohorts based on provider specialty, orthopedic, plastic, general, and neurosurgery, were matched using the following factors: age, sex, diabetes, obesity, tobacco use, location of procedure, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Average cost by specialty was then calculated and compared. Rates of therapy within 3 months after surgery and EMG and nerve conduction velocity studies within 3 months before the procedure were also compared. Results: The matched cohorts consisted of 13,107 patients each. Plastic surgeons and neurosurgeons had the highest average cost ($2,923.29 and $2,922.58), followed by orthopedic surgeons ($2,765.95), with general surgeons having the lowest cost ($2,607.02). Rates of preoperative EMG and nerve conduction studies were highest with neurosurgeons (28.5%), followed by orthopedics and plastics (22.6% and 23.4%, respectively), with general surgeons ordering the fewest (19.7%). For complications, general surgeons and neurosurgeons had a small but statistically higher infection rate (0.8%, 0.7% respectively) compared with orthopedic and plastic surgeons (0.5%, 0.5%). Conclusions: The current study demonstrates that overall orthopedic, plastic, neurosurgery, and general surgeons perform CTRs with similar overall costs and with similar postoperative complications. Type of study/level of evidence: Economic/decision analysis 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.