ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2026
Prospective Multicenter Propensity Score-matched Comparison of Ultrasound-guided Versus Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release.
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. 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.
- A Mechanism-Based Classification and Review of Endoscopic and Ultrasound-Guided Carpal Tunnel Release.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Real-World Outcomes of Ultrasound-Guided Carpal Tunnel Release in 1,082 Hands: 6-Month Results From the MISSION Registry.Journal of hand surgery global online · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare 3-month clinical outcomes of patients treated with ultrasound-guided carpal tunnel release (UGCTR) or endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) in routine clinical practice. Methods: This prospective multicenter observational study enrolled patients with carpal tunnel syndrome who were treated with UGCTR or ECTR by experienced surgeons. Outcomes included Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale and Functional Status Scale, pain severity (0-10 scale), opioid use, health-related quality of life, overall satisfaction, wound satisfaction, and adverse events through 3 months. Propensity score matching was performed to balance patient characteristics between groups. Results: Among 372 matched patients (186 per group), UGCTR was more commonly performed under wide-awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet (85.5% vs 30.1%), had a shorter incision length (5 vs 12 mm), and required less frequent suture closure (11.0% vs 100%). In contrast, procedure time was shorter with ECTR (8 vs 17 minutes). At 3 months, both groups showed significant improvement, with minor differences statistically favoring UGCTR (Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale, 0.13 points; Functional Status Scale, 0.19 points; pain severity, 0.6 points; health-related quality of life, 0.05 points). Opioid use was lower after UGCTR (10.3% vs 39.7%). Overall satisfaction (92.1% vs 83.6%) and wound satisfaction (93.9% vs 88.3%) were higher with UGCTR. No serious adverse events occurred; nonserious events were less frequent with UGCTR (0% vs 5.9%). Conclusions: UGCTR and ECTR are safe and effective treatments for carpal tunnel syndrome. UGCTR was more commonly performed under wide-awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet and was associated with reduced opioid use and higher overall/wound satisfaction, whereas ECTR was associated with a shorter procedure time. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic II.
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.