ReviewAdvances in orthopedics2026
Advancements in Surgical Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Comparative Review of Open, Endoscopic, and Ultra-Minimally Invasive Techniques.
Review in Advances in orthopedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common entrapment neuropathy, with surgical decompression as the definitive treatment for refractory or severe cases. With the evolution of surgical techniques, from open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) to endoscopic (ECTR) and ultra-minimally invasive ultrasound-guided approaches, there remains a need for a comprehensive comparative evaluation. This review aims to critically assess contemporary surgical modalities for CTS and to provide an evidence-based framework for patient-centered surgical decision-making. Methods: A structured narrative review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, covering studies from 1985 to February 2026. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses reporting clinical outcomes of OCTR, ECTR, and ultrasound-guided techniques. Outcomes assessed included symptom relief, functional scores, complications, recurrence, return to work, and cost-effectiveness. Data were synthesized thematically due to heterogeneity. Results: OCTR and ECTR demonstrate comparable long-term symptom relief and functional outcomes. ECTR offers advantages in early postoperative recovery, including reduced pain and faster return to work. Ultra-minimally invasive ultrasound-guided techniques show promising early outcomes and accelerated recovery in selected patients, though long-term data remain limited. Complication rates are low across techniques and are influenced more by surgical expertise and completeness of release than by approach alone. Economic analyses suggest early recovery may offset higher procedural costs in working populations. Conclusion: Long-term outcomes of CTS surgery are broadly equivalent across techniques when adequate decompression is achieved. The surgical approach should be individualized based on disease severity, patient factors, occupational demands, and surgeon expertise. Further high-quality, long-term comparative studies are needed to define the role of emerging ultra-minimally invasive techniques.
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.