Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release is a controversial procedure used in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Although endoscopic carpal tunnel release is associated with less incisional pain and faster recovery time than the open carpal tunnel release, opponents of endoscopic carpal tunnel release suggest that its benefits are outweighed by its higher complication rates from median nerve transection and transient numbness of the fingers. Because of the huge economic and social impact of carpal tunnel syndrome in this country, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing endoscopic carpal tunnel release and open carpal tunnel release using guidelines established by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine of the U.S. Public Health Service. A decision analytic model was used to measure differences in cost and effectiveness--expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)--between endoscopic carpal tunnel release and open carpal tunnel release. The societal perspective was chosen, and probabilities for various outcomes for the two procedures were obtained from published randomized-controlled trials. Cost data were derived from the Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Units published in the Federal Register. QALYs were obtained from two groups of health care providers using a utility-assessment questionnaire. Using probabilities for various outcomes from the two published randomized-controlled trials comparing endoscopic carpal tunnel release and open carpal tunnel release, we constructed a decision tree to derive both the cost and the QALYs for the two procedures. The incremental cost difference between endoscopic carpal tunnel release and open carpal tunnel release was $46, using Medicare cost and probabilities of various outcomes derived from a study by Brown et al. in 1993. We calculated QALYs for five age groups--25, 35, 45, 55, 65--assuming a life expectancy of 75 years. The marginal effectiveness (QALY of endoscopic carpal tunnel release minus QALY of open carpal tunnel release) ranged from 0.235 QALY for the 25-year-old age group to 0.066 QALY for the 65-year-old age group, giving a cost-effectiveness ratio of $195/QALY and $693/QALY, respectively. When compared with other accepted medical interventions such as breast cancer screening ($4836/QALY) and exercise to prevent coronary heart disease ($13,508/QALY), endoscopic carpal tunnel release seems to be cost-effective. However, our sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost-effectiveness ratio was very sensitive to a major complication such as median nerve injury. For endoscopic carpal tunnel release to be a cost-effective procedure, the incidence of median nerve injury must be one percentage point less for endoscopic carpal tunnel release than for open carpal tunnel release. Based on the data from the randomized-controlled trials, endoscopic carpal tunnel release seems to be a cost-effective procedure; however, before it can be recommended, greater emphasis must be given to the training of surgeons in this new technique, so that major complications such as median nerve injuries can be avoided. In addition, future studies must better define the actual incidence of nerve injuries for both endoscopic carpal tunnel release and open carpal tunnel release in the community setting.