CTR MEETS REALITY

Ibrahim Khan

doi:10.29245/2572.942x/2017/1.1165

Abstract

I applaud Logan McCool et al for “A review of advances in carpal tunnel release” but I must point out that these innovations have not made an iota of difference in the outcome of carpal tunnel release (CTR) which remains suboptimal

Highlights

I applaud Logan McCool et al for “A review of advances in carpal tunnel release”[1] but I must point out that these innovations have not made an iota of difference in the outcome of carpal tunnel release (CTR) which remains suboptimal
The cascading effects of this is on display in the study by Menendez et al[2] which has prompted a mad scramble for the solution that was quite palpable at the annual meeting of American Society for Surgery of hand (ASSH) in Sept; 2017 in San Francisco where an instructional coarse (IC 46) on: Challenges in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome, there were 4 presentations on: The unhappy patient after CTR
What was presented was same ole, same ole. To solve this problem we need ‘new knowledge’ and the clue to this ‘new knowledge’ can be found in this study from Mayo clinic: Pre- & postoperative dynamic ultrasound assessment of the median nerve in patients undergoing CTR; which was read at the 2017 EUROHAND in Budapest by Evers et al3 “ CTR is effective in reducing pressure, 70–90% of the patients have residual symptoms

Summary

Introduction

I applaud Logan McCool et al for “A review of advances in carpal tunnel release”[1] but I must point out that these innovations have not made an iota of difference in the outcome of carpal tunnel release (CTR) which remains suboptimal.

Objectives

Results

Conclusion