The Mini-Incision Technique Versus Conventional Open Approach for Carpal Tunnel Release: A Retrospective, Comparative Cohort Study.

Background and objective Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) is the gold standard technique for treating carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). While mini-incision carpal tunnel release (MCTR) has been introduced as an alternative approach, there have been some concerns over its effectiveness and risks. In light of this, the aim of the study was to compare the long-standing clinical outcomes after MCTR with those following OCTR. Methods We employed a retrospective cohort design for this study. Patients were classified into two surgery groups, followed up for two years, and compared in terms of the following variables: duration of symptoms; pinch strength; grip strength; 2-point discrimination; visual analog scale (VAS) score; Levine symptom score; Levine function score; quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (QuickDASH) score; wound pain; and pillar pain. Results The study included data regarding 120 patients, 71.66% of whom were females. The MCTR and OCTR groups were similar in terms of age, sex, duration of symptoms, and certain other aspects at baseline. The operation duration (15.15 ±2.20 vs. 25.01 ±2.15 minutes, p<0.01) and incision length (11.425 ±1.56 vs. 20.35 ±2.43 mm, p<0.01) were significantly shorter in the MCTR group compared to the OCTR group. Wound pain and pillar pain were not documented in the MCTR group at three and six months. The OCTR group had pillar pain in 25% of the patients till two years postoperatively. Conclusion Based on our findings, we propose that MCTR is superior to OCTR. The mini-incision technique has the advantages of small incision and scar, low pain, and faster recovery. Moreover, the technique was also found to be safe with no major complications or recurrence of symptoms. Further randomized control trials may help to re-evaluate the technique and validate our findings.