17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Is surgical intervention more effective than non-surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome? a systematic review

      review-article
      1 , 2 , , 2 , 3
      Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common disorder in hand surgery practice. Both surgical and conservative interventions are utilized for the carpal tunnel syndrome. Although certain indications would specifically indicate the need for surgery, there is a spectrum of patients for whom either treatment option might be selected. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy of surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome with conservative treatment

          Methods

          We included all controlled trials written in English, attempting to compare any surgical interventions with any conservative therapies. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2010), MEDLINE (1980 to June 2010), EMBASE (1980 to June 2010), PEDro (searched in June 2010), international guidelines, computer searches based on key words and reference lists of articles. Two reviewers performed study selection, assessment of methodological quality and data extraction independently of each other. Weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for patient self-reported functional and symptom questionnaires were calculated. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals for electrophysiological studies and complication were also calculated.

          Results

          We assessed seven studies in this review including 5 RCTs and 2 controlled trials. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from moderate to high. The weighted mean difference demonstrated a larger treatment benefit for surgical intervention compared to non surgical intervention at six months for functional status 0.35( 95% CI 0.22, 0.47) and symptom severity 0.43 (95% CI 0.29, 0.57). There were no statistically significant difference between the intervention options at 3 months but there was a benefit in favor of surgery in terms of function and symptom relief at 12 months ( 0.35, 95% CI 0.15, 0.55 and 0.37, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56). The RR for secondary outcomes of normal nerve conduction studies was 2.3 (95% CI 1.2, 4.4), while RR was 2.03 (95% CI 1.28 to 3.22) for complication, both favoring surgery.

          Conclusion

          Both surgical and conservative interventions had treatment benefit in carpal tunnel syndrome. Surgical treatment has a superior benefit, in symptoms and function, at six and twelve months. Patient underwent surgical release were two times more likely to have normal nerve conduction studies but also had complication and side effects as well. Given the treatment differential and potential for adverse effects and that conservative interventions benefitted a substantial proportion of patients, current practice of a trial of conservative management with surgical release for severe or persistent symptoms is supported by evidence.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome in a general population.

          Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a cause of pain, numbness, and tingling in the hands and is an important cause of work disability. Although high prevalence rates of CTS in certain occupations have been reported, little is known about its prevalence in the general population. To estimate the prevalence of CTS in a general population. General health mail survey sent in February 1997, inquiring about symptoms of pain, numbness, and tingling in any part of the body, followed 2 months later by clinical examination and nerve conduction testing of responders reporting symptoms in the median nerve distribution in the hands, as well as of a sample of those not reporting these symptoms (controls). A region in southern Sweden with a population of 170000. A sex- and age-stratified sample of 3000 subjects (age range, 25-74 years) was randomly selected from the general population register and sent the survey, with a response rate of 83% (n = 2466; 46% men). Of the symptomatic responders, 81% underwent clinical examination. Population prevalence rates, calculated as the number of symptomatic responders diagnosed on examination as having clinically certain CTS and/or electrophysiological median neuropathy divided by the total number of responders. Of the 2466 responders, 354 reported pain, numbness, and/or tingling in the median nerve distribution in the hands (prevalence, 14.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0%-15.8%). On clinical examination, 94 symptomatic subjects were diagnosed as having clinically certain CTS (prevalence, 3.8%; 95% CI, 3.1%-4.6%). Nerve conduction testing showed median neuropathy at the carpal tunnel in 120 symptomatic subjects (prevalence, 4.9%; 95% CI, 4.1%-5.8%). Sixty-six symptomatic subjects had clinically and electrophysiologically confirmed CTS (prevalence, 2.7%; 95% CI, 2.1%-3.4%). Of 125 control subjects clinically examined, electrophysiological median neuropathy was found in 23 (18.4%; 95% CI, 12.0%-26.3%). Symptoms of pain, numbness, and tingling in the hands are common in the general population. Based on our data, 1 in 5 symptomatic subjects would be expected to have CTS based on clinical examination and electrophysiologic testing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome.

            We developed a self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in patients who have carpal tunnel syndrome. The reproducibility, internal consistency, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change of scales for the measurement of severity of symptoms and functional status were evaluated in a clinical study. The scales were highly reproducible (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.91 and 0.93 for severity of symptoms and functional status, respectively) and internally consistent (Cronbach alpha, 0.89 and 0.91 for severity of symptoms and functional status, respectively). Both scales had positive, but modest or weak, correlations with two-point discrimination and Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing (Spearman coefficient, r = 0.12 to 0.42). In thirty-eight patients who were operated on in 1990 and were evaluated a median of fourteen months postoperatively, the mean symptom-severity score improved from 3.4 points preoperatively to 1.9 points at the latest follow-up examination, while the mean functional-status score improved from 3 to 2 points (5 points is the worst score and 1 point is the best score for each scale). Similar improvement was noted in twenty-six patients who were evaluated before and three months after the operation. We concluded that the scales for the measurement of severity of symptoms and functional status are reproducible, internally consistent, and responsive to clinical change, and that they measure dimensions of outcomes not captured by traditional measurements of impairment of the median nerve. These scales should enhance standardization of measurement of outcomes in studies of treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Orthop Surg Res
                Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
                BioMed Central
                1749-799X
                2011
                11 April 2011
                : 6
                : 17
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada
                [2 ]Hand and Upper Limb Centre Clinical Research Laboratory, St. Joseph's Health Centre, 268 Grosvenor St., London, Ontario, N6A 3A8, Canada
                [3 ]Professor, Assistant Dean of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada
                Article
                1749-799X-6-17
                10.1186/1749-799X-6-17
                3080334
                21477381
                4a976478-1559-4acc-a97c-52a00344cf55
                Copyright ©2011 Shi and MacDermid; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 2 October 2010
                : 11 April 2011
                Categories
                Review

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article