4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial

      1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 3 , 1 , 1 , 2
      Pain Medicine
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Objectives

          To investigate the effect of hyaluronic acid (HA) in patients diagnosed with mild or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

          Design

          A prospective randomized, double-blinded control study with 6 months of follow-up.

          Setting

          Rehabilitation outpatient clinic of one single medical center.

          Subjects

          Thirty-five participants with mild or moderate CTS.

          Methods

          Participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to HA or control groups. The HA group received one ultrasound-guided perineural injection of 2.5 mL HA while the control group received 2.5 mL normal saline injection through in-plane, long-axis approach to separate the median nerve from the flexor retinaculum via nerve hydrodissection. Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores were the primary outcome, while secondary outcomes included the numeric rating scale (NRS), electrophysiological domains, and the cross-sectional area of the median nerve. The assessment was conducted prior to injection and during the second week and 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-injection.

          Results

          Thirty-two patients (17 wrists in HA group and 15 wrists in control group) completed the study. Compared with the control group, the HA group did not show significantly superior outcomes, except in BCTQ and NRS at the second week post-injection (all P < .0125).

          Conclusions

          A single ultrasound guided perineural HA injection may have short-term therapeutic efficacy for mild or moderate CTS; however, the 2-weeks superior efficacy was not beneficial for chronic neuropathy. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to verify its therapeutic efficacy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

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

          Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales.

          This review aims to explore the research available relating to three commonly used pain rating scales, the Visual Analogue Scale, the Verbal Rating Scale and the Numerical Rating Scale. The review provides information needed to understand the main properties of the scales. Data generated from pain-rating scales can be easily misunderstood. This review can help clinicians to understand the main features of these tools and thus use them effectively. A MedLine review via PubMed was carried out with no restriction of age of papers retrieved. Papers were examined for methodological soundness before being included. The search terms initially included pain rating scales, pain measurement, Visual Analogue Scale, VAS, Verbal Rating Scale, VRS, Numerical/numeric Rating Scale, NRS. The reference lists of retrieved articles were used to generate more papers and search terms. Only English Language papers were examined. All three pain-rating scales are valid, reliable and appropriate for use in clinical practice, although the Visual Analogue Scale has more practical difficulties than the Verbal Rating Scale or the Numerical Rating Scale. For general purposes the Numerical Rating Scale has good sensitivity and generates data that can be statistically analysed for audit purposes. Patients who seek a sensitive pain-rating scale would probably choose this one. For simplicity patients prefer the Verbal Rating Scale, but it lacks sensitivity and the data it produces can be misunderstood. In order to use pain-rating scales well clinicians need to appreciate the potential for error within the tools, and the potential they have to provide the required information. Interpretation of the data from a pain-rating scale is not as straightforward as it might first appear.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale

            Pain intensity is frequently measured on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain. However, it is difficult to interpret the clinical importance of changes from baseline on this scale (such as a 1- or 2-point change). To date, there are no data driven estimates for clinically important differences in pain intensity scales used for chronic pain studies. We have estimated a clinically important difference on this scale by relating it to global assessments of change in multiple studies of chronic pain. Data on 2724 subjects from 10 recently completed placebo-controlled clinical trials of pregabalin in diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis were used. The studies had similar designs and measurement instruments, including the PI-NRS, collected in a daily diary, and the standard seven-point patient global impression of change (PGIC), collected at the endpoint. The changes in the PI-NRS from baseline to the endpoint were compared to the PGIC for each subject. Categories of "much improved" and "very much improved" were used as determinants of a clinically important difference and the relationship to the PI-NRS was explored using graphs, box plots, and sensitivity/specificity analyses. A consistent relationship between the change in PI-NRS and the PGIC was demonstrated regardless of study, disease type, age, sex, study result, or treatment group. On average, a reduction of approximately two points or a reduction of approximately 30% in the PI-NRS represented a clinically important difference. The relationship between percent change and the PGIC was also consistent regardless of baseline pain, while higher baseline scores required larger raw changes to represent a clinically important difference. The application of these results to future studies may provide a standard definition of clinically important improvement in clinical trials of chronic pain therapies. Use of a standard outcome across chronic pain studies would greatly enhance the comparability, validity, and clinical applicability of these studies.
              Bookmark
              • 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

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Pain Medicine
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1526-2375
                1526-4637
                November 01 2021
                November 26 2021
                March 22 2021
                November 01 2021
                November 26 2021
                March 22 2021
                : 22
                : 11
                : 2676-2685
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Tri-Service General Hospital, School of Medicine, National Defense Medical Center, Neihu, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
                [2 ]Integrated Pain Management Center, Tri-Service General Hospital, School of Medicine, National Defense Medical Center, Neihu, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
                [3 ]Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Taichung Armed Forces General Hospital, Taiping, Taichung City, Taiwan, Republic of China
                Article
                10.1093/pm/pnab109
                33749798
                8e247163-9f27-44df-816a-b8628bfb33db
                © 2021

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article