Yazeed A Almojel, Hussam A Alhathlol, Yazeed A Asery, Nawaf K Nahhas, Mohammed I Alhumaidan, Maan Almaghrabi, Mohammed D Alqarni, Alaa Alsahli, Turki S Alhassan
{"title":"Comparing the Efficacy of Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Repair Versus Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials.","authors":"Yazeed A Almojel, Hussam A Alhathlol, Yazeed A Asery, Nawaf K Nahhas, Mohammed I Alhumaidan, Maan Almaghrabi, Mohammed D Alqarni, Alaa Alsahli, Turki S Alhassan","doi":"10.1097/GOX.0000000000006887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical decompression of carpal tunnel syndrome by the standard open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) technique was associated with postoperative pain and tenderness. Thus, the endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) has been introduced to reduce the complications of open surgery through a shorter incision to decrease scar pain and achieve rapid recovery. In this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes between OCTR and ECTR, according to randomized controlled trial evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software. Standard mean difference and a 95% confidence interval were used for continuous outcomes, whereas odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were utilized for dichotomous outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 34 studies were included. ECTR has shown significant lower rates of scar pain and significant shorter recovery compared OCRT. However, we could not find any significant difference between the groups in terms of complication rates, incidences of local pain, mean pain scores, subjective complete or near complete symptom relief rate, subjective complete satisfaction rate, mean satisfaction scores, mean scores of symptom severity, mean scores of functional status, and mean time of operation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both ECTR and OCTR are safe and effective in management of carpal tunnel syndrome. However, ECTR may be slightly superior in terms of scar pain and postoperative recovery, although other factors not included in this study, including cost and convenience, must be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":20149,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","volume":"13 6","pages":"e6887"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12185073/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006887","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Surgical decompression of carpal tunnel syndrome by the standard open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) technique was associated with postoperative pain and tenderness. Thus, the endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) has been introduced to reduce the complications of open surgery through a shorter incision to decrease scar pain and achieve rapid recovery. In this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes between OCTR and ECTR, according to randomized controlled trial evidence.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software. Standard mean difference and a 95% confidence interval were used for continuous outcomes, whereas odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were utilized for dichotomous outcomes.
Results: A total of 34 studies were included. ECTR has shown significant lower rates of scar pain and significant shorter recovery compared OCRT. However, we could not find any significant difference between the groups in terms of complication rates, incidences of local pain, mean pain scores, subjective complete or near complete symptom relief rate, subjective complete satisfaction rate, mean satisfaction scores, mean scores of symptom severity, mean scores of functional status, and mean time of operation.
Conclusions: Both ECTR and OCTR are safe and effective in management of carpal tunnel syndrome. However, ECTR may be slightly superior in terms of scar pain and postoperative recovery, although other factors not included in this study, including cost and convenience, must be considered.
背景:采用标准开放腕管释放(OCTR)技术对腕管综合征进行手术减压与术后疼痛和压痛相关。因此,内镜下腕管释放术(ECTR)被引入,通过更短的切口来减少开放手术的并发症,减少疤痕疼痛,实现快速恢复。在本研究中,我们的目的是比较OCTR和ECTR的结果,根据随机对照试验证据。方法:系统检索PubMed、Web of Science、EBSCO和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central)数据库的文献。采用综合meta分析软件进行meta分析。标准均差和95%置信区间用于连续结果,而比值比和95%置信区间用于二分类结果。结果:共纳入34项研究。与OCRT相比,ECTR显示出明显更低的疤痕疼痛率和更短的恢复时间。然而,在并发症发生率、局部疼痛发生率、平均疼痛评分、主观完全或接近完全症状缓解率、主观完全满意率、平均满意度评分、症状严重程度平均评分、功能状态平均评分和平均手术时间方面,我们没有发现组间有显著差异。结论:ECTR和OCTR治疗腕管综合征安全有效。然而,ECTR在疤痕疼痛和术后恢复方面可能略有优势,尽管必须考虑本研究中未包括的其他因素,包括成本和便利性。
期刊介绍:
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open is an open access, peer reviewed, international journal focusing on global plastic and reconstructive surgery.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open publishes on all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including basic science/experimental studies pertinent to the field and also clinical articles on such topics as: breast reconstruction, head and neck surgery, pediatric and craniofacial surgery, hand and microsurgery, wound healing, and cosmetic and aesthetic surgery. Clinical studies, experimental articles, ideas and innovations, and techniques and case reports are all welcome article types. Manuscript submission is open to all surgeons, researchers, and other health care providers world-wide who wish to communicate their research results on topics related to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Furthermore, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open, a complimentary journal to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, provides an open access venue for the publication of those research studies sponsored by private and public funding agencies that require open access publication of study results. Its mission is to disseminate high quality, peer reviewed research in plastic and reconstructive surgery to the widest possible global audience, through an open access platform. As an open access journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open offers its content for free to any viewer. Authors of articles retain their copyright to the materials published. Additionally, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open provides rapid review and publication of accepted papers.