Hartrick Olivia J, Turner Rebecca K, Freethy Alexander, Khatri Chetan, Chong Lauren, Wade Ryckie G, Wormald Justin C R, Wiberg Akira, Rodrigues Jeremy N, Harrison Conrad
Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Hand Surgery, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, UK.
UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
BJS Open. 2025 Jul 1;9(4). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraf085.
Carpal tunnel release (CTR) can be performed using either an open or endoscopic approach. The patient recovery trajectories remain poorly understood. This study aimed to define and compare patient-reported recovery following unilateral open and endoscopic CTR.
A PRISMA-compliant, preregistered (CRD42023427718) systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on 4 July 2023 and 21 August 2024. Studies were included if they reported recovery data (patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)) at predefined time points for adults undergoing unilateral CTR. Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were extracted. Standardized mean change (SMC) scores from baseline were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. An innovative modification of the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tools was used to evaluate the risk of bias.
In all, 49 studies were included (4546 participants included in the analysis; 3137 open CTR, 1409 endoscopic CTR). Both approaches improved PROM scores over 12 weeks, with early (4-week) outcomes strongly correlating (>0.89) with later (12-week) outcomes. Symptoms continued improving up to 104 weeks. At 1 week, open CTR showed symptomatic deterioration (SMC 10.29; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 6.35 and 14.21 respectively), comparatively, endoscopic CTR demonstrated an improvement (SMC -2.83; 95% c.i. -7.80 and 2.14 respectively). By 2 weeks, symptom severity remained slightly worse in open CTR, but confidence intervals overlapped from week 3 and thereafter open CTR showed greater symptomatic improvement. Most studies had a high risk of bias and measured outcomes too infrequently for a granular comparison.
Patient-reported recovery trajectories for CTR can inform patient counselling and future research. Endoscopic CTR may result in fewer symptoms in the first 2 weeks, but open CTR may offer comparable or potentially greater improvement thereafter. Future trials with high-frequency PROM capture should prioritize early (first 3 weeks) and long-term (≥24 weeks) outcomes.
腕管松解术(CTR)可以通过开放手术或内镜手术进行。目前对患者的恢复轨迹仍知之甚少。本研究旨在定义和比较单侧开放手术与内镜手术CTR后患者报告的恢复情况。
进行了一项符合PRISMA标准的预注册(CRD42023427718)系统评价,于2023年7月4日和2024年8月21日检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库。如果研究报告了接受单侧CTR的成年人在预定义时间点的恢复数据(患者报告结局指标(PROMs)),则纳入研究。提取波士顿腕管问卷和手臂、肩部和手部快速残疾评分。使用随机效应荟萃分析汇总基线标准化平均变化(SMC)评分。采用对美国国立卫生研究院质量评估工具的创新性修改来评估偏倚风险。
总共纳入了49项研究(分析中包括4546名参与者;3137例行开放CTR,1409例行内镜CTR)。两种手术方法在12周内均改善了PROM评分,早期(4周)结局与后期(12周)结局高度相关(>0.89)。症状持续改善至104周。在1周时,开放CTR显示症状恶化(SMC分别为10.29;95%置信区间(c.i.)为6.35和14.21),相比之下,内镜CTR显示有所改善(SMC分别为 -2.83;95% c.i.为 -7.80和2.14)。到2周时,开放CTR的症状严重程度仍略差,但从第3周起置信区间重叠,此后开放CTR显示出更大的症状改善。大多数研究存在较高的偏倚风险,且测量结局的频率过低,无法进行细致比较。
患者报告的CTR恢复轨迹可为患者咨询和未来研究提供参考。内镜CTR在前2周可能导致的症状较少,但开放CTR此后可能提供相当或更大的改善。未来高频PROM采集的试验应优先关注早期(前3周)和长期(≥24周)结局。