Comparative assessment of seven surgical procedures in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: a network meta-analysis empowering physician-patient decision-making.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Amr Elrosasy, Mahmoud Diaa Hindawi, Qasi Najah, Mohamed Abo Zeid, Hatem Eldeeb, Asem Ahmed Ghalwash, Eslam Afifi, Abdallah Bani-Salameh, Nereen Almosilhy, Mohamed Ahmed Shahen, Fatma Ahmed Monib, Yousef Hawas, Abdullah Raizah, Turki Ahmed Alqahtani, Mahmoud El-Rosasy, Rashad G Mohamad
{"title":"Comparative assessment of seven surgical procedures in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: a network meta-analysis empowering physician-patient decision-making.","authors":"Amr Elrosasy, Mahmoud Diaa Hindawi, Qasi Najah, Mohamed Abo Zeid, Hatem Eldeeb, Asem Ahmed Ghalwash, Eslam Afifi, Abdallah Bani-Salameh, Nereen Almosilhy, Mohamed Ahmed Shahen, Fatma Ahmed Monib, Yousef Hawas, Abdullah Raizah, Turki Ahmed Alqahtani, Mahmoud El-Rosasy, Rashad G Mohamad","doi":"10.1007/s10143-025-03587-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is a common peripheral nerve entrapment disorder with a high global burden. Various surgical techniques have been developed to optimize symptom relief and minimize postoperative morbidity. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of different carpal tunnel release (CTR) procedures. We conducted a systematic review and NMA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical CTR techniques. Outcomes included symptom severity, pain scores, functional status, patient-reported outcomes, operative time, and adverse events. Data were synthesized using the frequentist approach with the netmeta package in R. Confidence in network estimates was evaluated using the CINeMA framework. Thirty-two RCTs comprising 2,916 patients were included. One-port and two-port endoscopic CTR (ECTR) techniques demonstrated superior symptom relief compared to conventional open CTR (COCTR), particularly at three months (two-port ECTR: SMD = -4.47; 95% CI: -5.67 to -3.26). One-port ECTR consistently showed better functional outcomes across all timepoints, including improved grip (SMD = 1.37; 95% CI: 0.35 to 2.39) and pinch strength. Pain was significantly reduced with two-port ECTR at one and three months. Ultrasound-guided CTR (CTR-US) showed the highest patient satisfaction (OR = 6.89; 95% CI: 1.87 to 25.43) and a significantly shorter return-to-work duration. The double tunnels technique (DTT) had the lowest risk of adverse events (OR = 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.42). Operational time and scar tenderness were comparable across all techniques. Heterogeneity was generally low to moderate across outcomes, and CINeMA assessments indicated moderate to low confidence in several comparisons. Endoscopic techniques, particularly one- and two-port ECTR, offer superior outcomes in symptom severity and functional recovery compared to COCTR. CTR-US appears to maximize patient satisfaction and early return to work, while DTT is associated with the fewest complications. These findings can guide individualized, evidence-based treatment decisions in CTS surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"486"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12141404/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03587-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is a common peripheral nerve entrapment disorder with a high global burden. Various surgical techniques have been developed to optimize symptom relief and minimize postoperative morbidity. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of different carpal tunnel release (CTR) procedures. We conducted a systematic review and NMA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical CTR techniques. Outcomes included symptom severity, pain scores, functional status, patient-reported outcomes, operative time, and adverse events. Data were synthesized using the frequentist approach with the netmeta package in R. Confidence in network estimates was evaluated using the CINeMA framework. Thirty-two RCTs comprising 2,916 patients were included. One-port and two-port endoscopic CTR (ECTR) techniques demonstrated superior symptom relief compared to conventional open CTR (COCTR), particularly at three months (two-port ECTR: SMD = -4.47; 95% CI: -5.67 to -3.26). One-port ECTR consistently showed better functional outcomes across all timepoints, including improved grip (SMD = 1.37; 95% CI: 0.35 to 2.39) and pinch strength. Pain was significantly reduced with two-port ECTR at one and three months. Ultrasound-guided CTR (CTR-US) showed the highest patient satisfaction (OR = 6.89; 95% CI: 1.87 to 25.43) and a significantly shorter return-to-work duration. The double tunnels technique (DTT) had the lowest risk of adverse events (OR = 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.42). Operational time and scar tenderness were comparable across all techniques. Heterogeneity was generally low to moderate across outcomes, and CINeMA assessments indicated moderate to low confidence in several comparisons. Endoscopic techniques, particularly one- and two-port ECTR, offer superior outcomes in symptom severity and functional recovery compared to COCTR. CTR-US appears to maximize patient satisfaction and early return to work, while DTT is associated with the fewest complications. These findings can guide individualized, evidence-based treatment decisions in CTS surgery.

腕管综合征七种手术方式的比较评估:一项增强医患决策能力的网络meta分析。
腕管综合征(Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, CTS)是一种常见的周围神经卡压性疾病,具有很高的全球负担。各种外科技术已经发展到优化症状缓解和减少术后发病率。本网络荟萃分析(NMA)旨在比较不同腕管释放(CTR)手术的相对疗效和安全性。我们对比较外科CTR技术的随机对照试验(rct)进行了系统评价和NMA。结果包括症状严重程度、疼痛评分、功能状态、患者报告的结果、手术时间和不良事件。数据使用频率方法与r中的netmeta包进行合成,使用CINeMA框架评估网络估计的置信度。纳入32项随机对照试验,包括2,916例患者。与传统的开放式CTR (COCTR)相比,单端口和双端口内镜CTR (ECTR)技术显示出更好的症状缓解,特别是在三个月时(双端口ECTR: SMD = -4.47;95% CI: -5.67 ~ -3.26)。单端口ECTR在所有时间点均显示出更好的功能结果,包括握力改善(SMD = 1.37;95% CI: 0.35 ~ 2.39)和夹紧强度。两口ECTR在1个月和3个月时疼痛明显减轻。超声引导CTR (tr - us)患者满意度最高(OR = 6.89;95% CI: 1.87至25.43),并且明显缩短了重返工作岗位的持续时间。双隧道技术(DTT)不良事件发生风险最低(OR = 0.05;95% CI: 0.01 ~ 0.42)。手术时间和疤痕压痛在所有技术中具有可比性。结果的异质性一般为低到中等,CINeMA评估显示在几个比较中有中等到低的可信度。内窥镜技术,特别是一端口和双端口ECTR,与COCTR相比,在症状严重程度和功能恢复方面提供了更好的结果。cr - us似乎最大限度地提高了患者满意度和早期恢复工作,而DTT与并发症最少相关。这些发现可以指导CTS手术的个体化、循证治疗决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信