Thoma Achilleas, Veltri Karen, Haines Ted, Duku Eric
Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and the Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Oct;114(5):1137-46. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000135850.37523.d0.
Controversy exists regarding the benefit of endoscopic carpal tunnel release versus open carpal tunnel release in terms of grip/pinch strength, scar tenderness, pain, return to work, reversible/irreversible nerve damage, and adverse effects. Although a number of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have been published on the subject, to date, no large definitive randomized controlled trial or meta-analysis has been performed comparing endoscopic to open carpal tunnel release. This meta-analysis was undertaken to address the effectiveness of endoscopic carpal tunnel release relative to open carpal tunnel release. Key outcome measures from 13 randomized controlled trials were extracted and statistically combined. Heterogeneity was observed in three of the outcomes (i.e., grip strength, pain, and return to work), but the causes of heterogeneity could not be explained because of insufficient detail in the reported studies. Using the Jadad et al. scale, nine of 13 studies were of low methodologic quality. The effect sizes were compared between the studies that were rated as high quality and the studies that were rated as low quality on the Jadad et al. scale. Similarly, the studies that were rated as high quality on the Gerritsen et al. scale were compared with those that were rated as low quality. No clinically significant difference in effect sizes was apparent between studies of high and low methodologic quality. This meta-analysis supports the conclusion that endoscopic carpal tunnel release is favored over the open carpal tunnel release in terms of a reduction in scar tenderness and increase in grip and pinch strength at a 12-week follow-up. With regard to symptom relief and return to work, the data are inconclusive. Irreversible nerve damage is uncommon in either technique; however, there is an increased susceptibility to reversible nerve injury that is three times as likely to occur with endoscopic carpal tunnel release than with open carpal tunnel release.
关于内镜下腕管松解术与开放性腕管松解术在握力/捏力强度、瘢痕压痛、疼痛、恢复工作、可逆/不可逆神经损伤以及不良反应方面的益处,目前存在争议。尽管已经发表了一些关于该主题的随机对照试验和系统评价,但迄今为止,尚未进行大型的确定性随机对照试验或荟萃分析来比较内镜下与开放性腕管松解术。本荟萃分析旨在探讨内镜下腕管松解术相对于开放性腕管松解术的有效性。从13项随机对照试验中提取关键结局指标并进行统计学合并。在三个结局(即握力、疼痛和恢复工作)中观察到异质性,但由于报告研究中的细节不足,无法解释异质性的原因。使用Jadad等人的量表,13项研究中有9项方法学质量较低。在Jadad等人的量表上,对高质量和低质量的研究进行了效应量比较。同样,在Gerritsen等人的量表上,对高质量和低质量的研究进行了比较。方法学质量高和低的研究之间,效应量没有明显的临床显著差异。本荟萃分析支持以下结论:在12周随访时,内镜下腕管松解术在减轻瘢痕压痛以及增加握力和捏力强度方面优于开放性腕管松解术。关于症状缓解和恢复工作,数据尚无定论。两种技术中不可逆神经损伤均不常见;然而,内镜下腕管松解术发生可逆性神经损伤的易感性增加,其发生可能性是开放性腕管松解术的三倍。