Hasegawa K, Hashizume H, Senda M, Kawai A, Inoue H
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Okayama University Medical School, Japan.
Acta Med Okayama. 1999 Aug;53(4):179-83. doi: 10.18926/AMO/31614.
To evaluate the usefulness of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) on patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome, multiple aspects of the results of 44 hands (42 patients) treated by ECTR and 40 hands (40 patients) treated by open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) were compared. Results of ECTR were compared with those of OCTR to study not only recovery rate and surgical safety but also cost-effectiveness. Although ECTR was much less invasive than OCTR, recovery of median nerve palsy in the ECTR group was not as good as that in the OCTR group one month after the surgery. Three months after surgery, the palsy of patients treated by ECTR had improved to almost the same extent as in those treated by OCTR. There were no major surgical complications in both ECTR and OCTR groups. The cost and time needed for ECTR treatment was 1/3 of those needed for OCTR. ECTR reduced both cost and treatment time, which is beneficial for both doctors and patients.
为评估内镜下腕管松解术(ECTR)对特发性腕管综合征患者的有效性,比较了接受ECTR治疗的44只手(42例患者)和接受开放性腕管松解术(OCTR)治疗的40只手(40例患者)结果的多个方面。将ECTR的结果与OCTR的结果进行比较,不仅研究恢复率和手术安全性,还研究成本效益。尽管ECTR的侵入性远低于OCTR,但术后1个月ECTR组正中神经麻痹的恢复情况不如OCTR组。术后3个月,接受ECTR治疗的患者的麻痹改善程度几乎与接受OCTR治疗的患者相同。ECTR组和OCTR组均未出现重大手术并发症。ECTR治疗所需的成本和时间是OCTR所需成本和时间的1/3。ECTR降低了成本和治疗时间,这对医生和患者都有益。