开放和内窥镜腕管减压术后恢复时间:meta分析。

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
BJS Open Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI:10.1093/bjsopen/zraf085
Olivia J Hartrick, Rebecca K Turner, Alexander Freethy, Chetan Khatri, Lauren Chong, Ryckie G Wade, Justin C R Wormald, Akira Wiberg, Jeremy N Rodrigues, Conrad Harrison
{"title":"开放和内窥镜腕管减压术后恢复时间:meta分析。","authors":"Olivia J Hartrick, Rebecca K Turner, Alexander Freethy, Chetan Khatri, Lauren Chong, Ryckie G Wade, Justin C R Wormald, Akira Wiberg, Jeremy N Rodrigues, Conrad Harrison","doi":"10.1093/bjsopen/zraf085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carpal tunnel release (CTR) can be performed using either an open or endoscopic approach. The patient recovery trajectories remain poorly understood. This study aimed to define and compare patient-reported recovery following unilateral open and endoscopic CTR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A PRISMA-compliant, preregistered (CRD42023427718) systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on 4 July 2023 and 21 August 2024. Studies were included if they reported recovery data (patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)) at predefined time points for adults undergoing unilateral CTR. Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were extracted. Standardized mean change (SMC) scores from baseline were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. An innovative modification of the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tools was used to evaluate the risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 49 studies were included (4546 participants included in the analysis; 3137 open CTR, 1409 endoscopic CTR). Both approaches improved PROM scores over 12 weeks, with early (4-week) outcomes strongly correlating (>0.89) with later (12-week) outcomes. Symptoms continued improving up to 104 weeks. At 1 week, open CTR showed symptomatic deterioration (SMC 10.29; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 6.35 and 14.21 respectively), comparatively, endoscopic CTR demonstrated an improvement (SMC -2.83; 95% c.i. -7.80 and 2.14 respectively). By 2 weeks, symptom severity remained slightly worse in open CTR, but confidence intervals overlapped from week 3 and thereafter open CTR showed greater symptomatic improvement. Most studies had a high risk of bias and measured outcomes too infrequently for a granular comparison.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient-reported recovery trajectories for CTR can inform patient counselling and future research. Endoscopic CTR may result in fewer symptoms in the first 2 weeks, but open CTR may offer comparable or potentially greater improvement thereafter. Future trials with high-frequency PROM capture should prioritize early (first 3 weeks) and long-term (≥24 weeks) outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9028,"journal":{"name":"BJS Open","volume":"9 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time to recovery following open and endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression: meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Olivia J Hartrick, Rebecca K Turner, Alexander Freethy, Chetan Khatri, Lauren Chong, Ryckie G Wade, Justin C R Wormald, Akira Wiberg, Jeremy N Rodrigues, Conrad Harrison\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bjsopen/zraf085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Carpal tunnel release (CTR) can be performed using either an open or endoscopic approach. The patient recovery trajectories remain poorly understood. This study aimed to define and compare patient-reported recovery following unilateral open and endoscopic CTR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A PRISMA-compliant, preregistered (CRD42023427718) systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on 4 July 2023 and 21 August 2024. Studies were included if they reported recovery data (patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)) at predefined time points for adults undergoing unilateral CTR. Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were extracted. Standardized mean change (SMC) scores from baseline were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. An innovative modification of the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tools was used to evaluate the risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 49 studies were included (4546 participants included in the analysis; 3137 open CTR, 1409 endoscopic CTR). Both approaches improved PROM scores over 12 weeks, with early (4-week) outcomes strongly correlating (>0.89) with later (12-week) outcomes. Symptoms continued improving up to 104 weeks. At 1 week, open CTR showed symptomatic deterioration (SMC 10.29; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 6.35 and 14.21 respectively), comparatively, endoscopic CTR demonstrated an improvement (SMC -2.83; 95% c.i. -7.80 and 2.14 respectively). By 2 weeks, symptom severity remained slightly worse in open CTR, but confidence intervals overlapped from week 3 and thereafter open CTR showed greater symptomatic improvement. Most studies had a high risk of bias and measured outcomes too infrequently for a granular comparison.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient-reported recovery trajectories for CTR can inform patient counselling and future research. Endoscopic CTR may result in fewer symptoms in the first 2 weeks, but open CTR may offer comparable or potentially greater improvement thereafter. Future trials with high-frequency PROM capture should prioritize early (first 3 weeks) and long-term (≥24 weeks) outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJS Open\",\"volume\":\"9 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJS Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraf085\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJS Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraf085","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腕管释放术(CTR)可以通过开放或内窥镜入路进行。病人的康复轨迹仍然知之甚少。本研究旨在定义和比较单侧开放CTR和内窥镜CTR后患者报告的恢复情况。方法:于2023年7月4日和2024年8月21日检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库,进行符合prisma标准的预注册(CRD42023427718)系统评价。如果研究报告了在预定时间点接受单侧CTR的成年人的恢复数据(患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)),则纳入研究。提取波士顿腕管问卷和手臂、肩膀和手的快速残疾评分。采用随机效应荟萃分析对基线的标准化平均变化(SMC)评分进行汇总。对美国国立卫生研究院质量评估工具进行了创新性修改,用于评估偏倚风险。结果:共纳入49项研究(4546名受试者纳入分析;3137开放式CTR, 1409内窥镜CTR)。两种方法在12周内都提高了PROM评分,早期(4周)结果与后期(12周)结果强烈相关(>.89)。症状持续改善至104周。1周时,开放CTR显示症状恶化(SMC 10.29;95%可信区间(ci)分别为6.35和14.21),相比之下,内镜下CTR表现出改善(SMC -2.83;95% c.i.分别为-7.80和2.14)。到2周时,开放CTR组的症状严重程度仍略差,但从第3周开始可信区间重叠,此后开放CTR显示出更大的症状改善。大多数研究存在较高的偏倚风险,而且测量结果的频率太低,无法进行细粒度比较。结论:患者报告的CTR恢复轨迹可以为患者咨询和未来的研究提供信息。内镜下CTR可能在前两周导致较少的症状,但开放CTR可能在此后提供类似或潜在更大的改善。未来的高频早膜捕获试验应优先考虑早期(前3周)和长期(≥24周)的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Time to recovery following open and endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression: meta-analysis.

Background: Carpal tunnel release (CTR) can be performed using either an open or endoscopic approach. The patient recovery trajectories remain poorly understood. This study aimed to define and compare patient-reported recovery following unilateral open and endoscopic CTR.

Methods: A PRISMA-compliant, preregistered (CRD42023427718) systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on 4 July 2023 and 21 August 2024. Studies were included if they reported recovery data (patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)) at predefined time points for adults undergoing unilateral CTR. Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were extracted. Standardized mean change (SMC) scores from baseline were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. An innovative modification of the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tools was used to evaluate the risk of bias.

Results: In all, 49 studies were included (4546 participants included in the analysis; 3137 open CTR, 1409 endoscopic CTR). Both approaches improved PROM scores over 12 weeks, with early (4-week) outcomes strongly correlating (>0.89) with later (12-week) outcomes. Symptoms continued improving up to 104 weeks. At 1 week, open CTR showed symptomatic deterioration (SMC 10.29; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 6.35 and 14.21 respectively), comparatively, endoscopic CTR demonstrated an improvement (SMC -2.83; 95% c.i. -7.80 and 2.14 respectively). By 2 weeks, symptom severity remained slightly worse in open CTR, but confidence intervals overlapped from week 3 and thereafter open CTR showed greater symptomatic improvement. Most studies had a high risk of bias and measured outcomes too infrequently for a granular comparison.

Conclusions: Patient-reported recovery trajectories for CTR can inform patient counselling and future research. Endoscopic CTR may result in fewer symptoms in the first 2 weeks, but open CTR may offer comparable or potentially greater improvement thereafter. Future trials with high-frequency PROM capture should prioritize early (first 3 weeks) and long-term (≥24 weeks) outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJS Open
BJS Open SURGERY-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
144
×
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