ReviewAsian journal of neurosurgery2026
Endoscopic versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Asian journal of neurosurgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carpal tunnel syndrome accounts for the most prevalent type of peripheral neuropathy encountered by surgeons in clinics worldwide. Despite several studies investigating endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) in comparison to open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), the best option is yet to be identified. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to evaluate and compare the surgery outcomes and complications associated with ECTR and OCTR by analyzing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if one technique offers superior results compared with the other. In this study, the systematic search was performed using MEDLINE and Embase search engines (via OVID SP), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until April 2024. We hand-searched references of the included studies as well. All RCTs that compared ECTR and OCTR approaches were included. Data on key clinical outcomes and complications, including return to work, revision surgery, nerve injury, operation time, and overall complications, were extracted and analyzed. A meta-analysis was performed if at least three studies reported the prognostic factor. The random-effect models were used. Thirty-three RCTs were included in our study, comprising 1,568 OCTR and 1,447 ECTR. ECTR was associated with shorter time to return to work in comparison with OCTR (mean difference [MD]: -8.08 days; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -12.71 to -3.46). Furthermore, ECTR had lower scar-related complication rates compared with OCTR (odds ratio [OR]: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.37). The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between ECTR and OCTR in revision surgery (OR, 0.78; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.78), permanent nerve injury (OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 0.08 to 31.81), transient nerve injury (OR: 2.29; 95% CI: 0.73 to 7.20), operation time (MD, -3.22; 95% CI: -9.53 to 3.08), and overall complications (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.61). Based on randomized evidence, ECTR was associated with a shorter time to return to work and fewer scar-related complications compared with OCTR. The assessment of revision surgery, permanent nerve injury, transient nerve injury, operation time, and overall complications showed no significant advantage for any of the 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.