To resect or avulse first rib in management of neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Fahmi H Kakamad
{"title":"To resect or avulse first rib in management of neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Fahmi H Kakamad","doi":"10.1007/s13304-025-02125-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome (nTOS) is commonly treated with first-rib resection, a procedure linked to postoperative complications, but its necessity remains debated among experts, highlighting the need for further research. This randomized controlled trial aims to compare conventional first-rib resection with the avulsion method to identify the most effective surgical approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, randomized, group-sequential trial compared two surgical approaches for treating nTOS. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo first-rib resection (Group A) or first-rib avulsion (Group B), with both groups blinded to treatment allocation. The University of Sulaimani granted ethical approval and obtained written informed consent. Inclusion criteria included nTOS patients requiring surgery, excluding those with other TOS types, cervical ribs, clavicular fractures, or other complications. Outcome measures included pain scores, numbness, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 48 female patients were enrolled (23 in Group A, 25 in Group B). The mean age was 32.58 ± 7.23 years, and the average operation duration was 48.27 ± 13.95 min. Group B had significantly longer ribs (P < 0.001). Both groups showed significant pain and numbness reduction, with no significant differences in outcomes (P = 0.647, P = 0.839). At 6 months, 92.0% of Group B and 87.0% of Group A patients recommended the surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although statistically not significant, first rib avulsion may offer a viable alternative to resection for nTOS, providing comparable pain relief and functional recovery with reduced invasiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":23391,"journal":{"name":"Updates in Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Updates in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02125-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome (nTOS) is commonly treated with first-rib resection, a procedure linked to postoperative complications, but its necessity remains debated among experts, highlighting the need for further research. This randomized controlled trial aims to compare conventional first-rib resection with the avulsion method to identify the most effective surgical approach.

Methods: This single-center, randomized, group-sequential trial compared two surgical approaches for treating nTOS. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo first-rib resection (Group A) or first-rib avulsion (Group B), with both groups blinded to treatment allocation. The University of Sulaimani granted ethical approval and obtained written informed consent. Inclusion criteria included nTOS patients requiring surgery, excluding those with other TOS types, cervical ribs, clavicular fractures, or other complications. Outcome measures included pain scores, numbness, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel.

Results: A total of 48 female patients were enrolled (23 in Group A, 25 in Group B). The mean age was 32.58 ± 7.23 years, and the average operation duration was 48.27 ± 13.95 min. Group B had significantly longer ribs (P < 0.001). Both groups showed significant pain and numbness reduction, with no significant differences in outcomes (P = 0.647, P = 0.839). At 6 months, 92.0% of Group B and 87.0% of Group A patients recommended the surgery.

Conclusion: Although statistically not significant, first rib avulsion may offer a viable alternative to resection for nTOS, providing comparable pain relief and functional recovery with reduced invasiveness.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Updates in Surgery
Updates in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
208
期刊介绍: Updates in Surgery (UPIS) has been founded in 2010 as the official journal of the Italian Society of Surgery. It’s an international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the surgical sciences. Its main goal is to offer a valuable update on the most recent developments of those surgical techniques that are rapidly evolving, forcing the community of surgeons to a rigorous debate and a continuous refinement of standards of care. In this respect position papers on the mostly debated surgical approaches and accreditation criteria have been published and are welcome for the future. Beside its focus on general surgery, the journal draws particular attention to cutting edge topics and emerging surgical fields that are publishing in monothematic issues guest edited by well-known experts. Updates in Surgery has been considering various types of papers: editorials, comprehensive reviews, original studies and technical notes related to specific surgical procedures and techniques on liver, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, robotic and bariatric surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信