ArticleJournal of wrist surgery2026
Cost Analysis of Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release with MAC versus Local Anesthesia.
Article in Journal of wrist surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The number of annual endoscopic carpal tunnel releases (ECTR) has been increasing due to comparable outcomes with open carpal tunnel release (CTR). Many studies have demonstrated cost-saving measures with open CTR, but similar studies for ECTR are lacking. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze differences in the costs associated with ECTR under local anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively compared the surgical costs of 844 patients undergoing isolated ECTR between 2018 and 2024. Patients undergoing isolated ECTR were identified using current procedural terminology code 29848. This included 187 patients undergoing ECTR with MAC and 657 with local anesthesia. The total hospital billed procedure, anesthesia, supply, and postoperative care cost was calculated for each group of patients. Total time spent at the surgical center and insurance type were also recorded. Univariate statistical analysis was completed. Results: ECTR under local anesthesia was associated with shorter overall time spent in the surgical center compared to MAC anesthesia (148.12 minutes vs. 224.41 minutes). Total hospital-billed procedure cost was significantly lower in the local anesthesia group ($5,643 vs. $9,073), representing an overall cost reduction of $3,430.15. For the local group, there was also an overall lower cost of supplies ($725 vs. $811), anesthesia cost ($0 vs. $994), medication cost ($10 vs. $69.50), and operating room/recovery time cost ($4,844 vs. $6,822). The insurance type distribution between the two groups was significantly different, with the local group having a higher percentage of private insurance. Conclusion: Patients undergoing ECTR with local anesthesia demonstrated overall shorter time spent in the surgical center with reduced total hospital billed procedure, anesthesia, medication/supply, and operating room/recovery room cost. ECTR with local anesthesia was associated with an overall cost reduction of $3,430.15 compared to MAC and local. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic 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.