Open Versus Mini‐Incision Carpal Tunnel Release Using the ProMIS Kit: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

What's New in Hand and Wrist Surgery.

Objective: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) in patients undergoing surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) at a tertiary care hospital. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 80 patients who underwent either OCTR or ECTR for CTS between July 2022 and June 2023. Patient demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), grip strength measurements, and patient satisfaction surveys. Results: Of the 80 patients, 40 underwent OCTR and 40 underwent ECTR. The ECTR group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (mean 22 minutes vs. 35 minutes, p<0.001) and earlier return to work (mean 7 days vs. 14 days, p<0.001). Postoperative pain levels were lower in the ECTR group (mean Visual Analog Scale score 2.1 vs. 3.4, p<0.01). However, the OCTR group had a lower incidence of complications, including nerve injury (1% vs. 4%, p=0.03) and wound infection (0% vs. 2%, p=0.04). Conclusion: Both OCTR and ECTR are effective surgical options for the treatment of CTS. ECTR offers advantages in terms of shorter operative time and quicker return to work, but is associated with a higher incidence of certain complications. The choice of surgical technique should be individualized based on patient factors and surgeon expertise. Keywords: Open carpal tunnel release, endoscopic carpal tunnel release, carpal tunnel syndrome, surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery.

The purpose of this study was to identify the advantages and disadvantages of performing a flexor tenosynovectomy without dividing the transverse carpal ligament, an open carpal tunnel release, and an open carpal tunnel release with flexor tenosynovectomy in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. From 1990 to 1998, a retrospective study was done in which a flexor tenosynovectomy was performed in 133 patients without division of the transverse carpal ligament and compared with 68 patients who had an open carpal tunnel release and 75 patients who had an open carpal tunnel release and flexor tenosynovectomy. Patients were followed up for an average period of 30 weeks with history and physical findings and nerve conduction velocities and for an average period of 2.6 years with telephone interviews. There was a 2.3 percent incidence of pillar pain in the flexor tenosynovectomy group, which may explain the earlier return to their regular jobs at an average time of 9.9 weeks, compared with 10.7 weeks for the carpal tunnel release group and 12.0 weeks for the carpal tunnel release/flexor tenosynovectomy group. The latter two groups had an incidence of pillar pain of 12.1 percent and 25.3 percent, respectively. Postoperative grip strength was statistically significantly improved in the flexor tenosynovectomy group compared with the other two groups, where adjustments were made for sex and preoperative grip strengths with standard error of adjusted means. In the flexor tenosynovectomy group, 20.6 percent of patients had a previous open or endoscopic carpal tunnel release with recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome, compared with 5.2 percent in the open carpal tunnel release group and 21.6 percent in the open carpal tunnel release with flexor tenosynovectomy group. Excisional biopsies of flexor tenosynovium in the flexor tenosynovectomy, open carpal tunnel release, and open carpal tunnel release with flexor tenosynovectomy groups revealed an incidence of fibrosis in 89.2 percent, 88.9 percent, and 87.7 percent of specimens, respectively. Edema was a frequent finding, but an active inflammatory response was seldom seen. The findings in this study indicate that because of a significant decrease in pillar pain, a flexor tenosynovectomy in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome would likely benefit workers who use the palm of the hand in heavy manual or highly repetitive work by allowing them to return to regular duty sooner.

The objective of this study is to do a meta-analysis of the literature and compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) for idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A comprehensive literature search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register was undertaken for randomized studies reporting carpal tunnel syndrome treated with ECTR or OCTR. The quality of randomized trials was critically assessed. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for safety and efficacy outcome variables were calculated by fixed-effect or random-effect methods with RevMan v.5.1 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. A total of 13 randomized trials were included by total retrieve and riddling. The results of our meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the overall complication rate (RR = 1.34, 95% CI [0.74, 2.43], P = 0.34), subjective satisfaction (RR = 1.0, 95% CI [0.93, 1.08], P = 0.92), time to return to work (mean difference = −3.52 [−8.15, 1.10], P = 0.14), hand grip and pinch strength, and the operative time (mean difference = −1.89, 95% CI [−5.84, 2.06]) between patients in the ECTR and OCTR groups (P = 0.16, 0.70, and 0.35, respectively). The rate of hand pain (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.53, 0.93], P = 0.02) in the ECTR group was significantly lower than that in the OCTR group. ECTR treatment seemed to cause more reversible postoperative nerve injuries as compared with OCTR (RR = 2.38, 95% CI [0.98, 5.77], P = 0.05). Although ECTR significantly reduced postoperative hand pain, it increased the possibility of reversible postoperative nerve injury in patients with idiopathic CTS. No statistical difference in the overall complication rate, subjective satisfaction, the time to return to work, postoperative grip and pinch strength, and operative time was observed between the two groups of patients.

Objective:To compare the results of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (CTR) with open CTR in patients with idiopathic Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).Materials and Methods:Seventy-one patients with CTS were enrolled in a prospective randomized study from May 2003 to December 2005. All patients had clinical signs or symptoms and electro-diagnostic findings consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome and had not responded to nonoperative management. Sixty-one cases were available for follow-up. Endoscopic CTR was performed in 30 CTS patients and open CTR was performed in 31 wrists (30 patients). Various parameters were evaluated, including each patient's symptom amelioration, complications, operation time, time needed to resume normal lifestyle and the frequency of revision surgery. All the patients were followed up for six months.Results:During the initial months after surgery, the patients treated with the endoscopic method were better symptomatically and functionally. Local wound problems in terms of scarring or scar tenderness were significantly more pronounced in patients undergoing open CTR compared to patients undergoing endoscopic CTR. Average delay to return to normal activity was appreciably less in group undergoing endoscopic CTR. No significant difference was observed between the endoscopic CTR group and open CTR group in regard to symptom amelioration, electromyographic testing and complications at the end of six months.Conclusion:Short-term results were better with the endoscopic method as there was no scar tenderness. Results at six months were comparable in both groups.

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common entrapment neuropathy of the upper extremity. In addition to traditional open carpal tunnel release (OCTR), endoscopic (ECTR) and mini-open (MOCTR) approaches have been developed as minimally invasive alternatives. However, comparative evidence regarding their clinical efficacy and safety remains inconsistent. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to PRISMA guidelines, including 44 comparative studies (38 comparing ECTR vs OCTR and 6 comparing ECTR vs MOCTR) involving adult patients with idiopathic CTS. Outcomes extracted included pain (VAS), functional scores (BCTQ-SSS, BCTQ-FSS, DASH), grip and pinch strength, sensory symptoms, and complications such as pillar pain, nerve injury, opioid use, and revision CTR. Across all functional measures (DASH, BCTQ-FSS, BCTQ-SSS), pain, and sensory outcomes, pooled analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences between ECTR, OCTR, and MOCTR. Grip and pinch strength were also comparable, indicating equivalent long-term motor recovery. Postoperative VAS pain scores did not differ significantly between ECTR and OCTR (p=0.10). Nerve injury also showed no significant difference between techniques in the random-effects model (p=0.56). Opioid prescription rates were similar across groups. Notably, ECTR demonstrated a significantly lower revision CTR rate compared with OCTR (risk ratio=0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.73; p=0.0009). Open, mini-open, and endoscopic carpal tunnel release techniques provide comparable outcomes in pain relief, functional recovery, strength, sensory symptoms, and overall safety for idiopathic CTS. Although revision CTR occurred less frequently after ECTR in the pooled analysis, the clinical significance of this difference remains uncertain. Technique selection should therefore be individualized based on surgeon expertise, patient priorities, and resource availability.

Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

To evaluate the usefulness of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) on patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome, multiple aspects of the results of 44 hands (42 patients) treated by ECTR and 40 hands (40 patients) treated by open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) were compared. Results of ECTR were compared with those of OCTR to study not only recovery rate and surgical safety but also cost-effectiveness. Although ECTR was much less invasive than OCTR, recovery of median nerve palsy in the ECTR group was not as good as that in the OCTR group one month after the surgery. Three months after surgery, the palsy of patients treated by ECTR had improved to almost the same extent as in those treated by OCTR. There were no major surgical complications in both ECTR and OCTR groups. The cost and time needed for ECTR treatment was 1/3 of those needed for OCTR. ECTR reduced both cost and treatment time, which is beneficial for both doctors and patients.

The purpose of the study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of ultrasound-guided carpal tunnel release (UGCTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) in real-world clinical settings. Patients with carpal tunnel syndrome were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter MISSION registry and treated with unilateral UGCTR or OCTR by experienced surgeons. Outcomes included the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Functional Status Scale, pain (0-10 scale), opioid use, health-related quality of life (EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level), satisfaction (overall and wound), and adverse events through 3 months. Baseline group characteristics were balanced using propensity score matching. A total of 178 patients per group were analyzed. The predominant anesthesia methods differed between groups (84.8% wide awake local anesthesia no tourniquet with UGCTR; 68.5% monitored anesthesia with OCTR). Ultrasound-guided carpal tunnel release was associated with shorter incisions (5.2 vs 16.5 mm) and less sutured wound closure (14.6% vs 100%), but longer procedure times (15 vs 6 minutes). At 3 months, UGCTR showed minor statistical advantages in Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity (group difference: -0.14 points), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Functional Status Scale (group difference: -0.16 points), and pain severity (group difference: -0.6 points), with no statistical differences in EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (group difference: 0.03 points) or overall satisfaction (group difference: 4.9%). Opioid use was less common (10.2% vs 49.1%), wound satisfaction was higher (94.2% vs 84.0%), and wound symptoms were less severe after UGCTR (60.7% vs 22.8% with no sensitivity or pain). Nonserious adverse event rates were comparable (1.1% vs 0.0%). Ultrasound-guided CTR and OCTR provided safe and effective symptom relief in routine clinical practice. Ultrasound-guided CTR was associated with less anesthesia, shorter incisions, reduced opioid use, and fewer wound symptoms, whereas procedure time was shorter with OCTR. Technique selection should be guided by shared decision making, considering patient expectations and surgeon's judgment. Therapeutic II.

Background The effectiveness of open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) in treating carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is well known. However, the role of ancillary external neurolysis of the median nerve is not well-documented. The Boston carpal tunnel questionnaire (BCTQ) is a commonly used disease-specific outcome instrument for CTS, which is validated across major languages of the world. No such validated Hindi version of BCTQ exists.Objectives To analyze and compare the long-term outcome in patients who underwent OCTR alone and OCTR with external neurolysis of the median nerve, using BCTQ–Hindi version, while checking its validity.Materials and Methods A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care institute. The BCTQ was translated into Hindi language by a language expert. Eighty-four consecutive patients who underwent either unilateral/bilateral OCTR, with or without external neurolysis of the median nerve, between 2009 and 2019 were included in the study. Outcome analysis was done using BCTQ–Hindi version and patient satisfaction scoring. BCTQ–Hindi version was examined for statistical validity. Subgroup analysis of the outcome based on surgical technique (OCTR vs. OCTR with external neurolysis) used was carried out.Results Response rate was 80.9%. Total hands evaluated were 108. BCTQ–Hindi version showed statistical validity. Overall symptom severity score (SSS) and functional severity score (FSS) were 1.14 ± 0.4 and 1.12 ± 0.35, respectively. Subgroup analysis of outcome revealed statistically significant results in favor of OCTR with external neurolysis of the median nerve.Conclusions BCTQ–Hindi version is statistically validated. OCTR with external neurolysis of the median nerve is a promising avenue in surgical management of CTS. Further prospective studies are warranted.

Although carpal tunnel release reliably improves symptoms in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), the short-term pattern of postoperative recovery in hand strength remains incompletely characterized. Serial measurement of grip and pinch strength, together with patient-reported outcome assessment, may provide a more clinically meaningful description of early recovery after surgery. This prospective observational cohort study included 21 adults with clinically and electrophysiologically confirmed CTS who underwent standardized mini-open carpal tunnel release. All participants followed the same structured 12-week home-based postoperative strengthening protocol beginning in the third postoperative week, following the initial wound-healing period. Grip strength (Jamar hydraulic hand dynamometer) and pinch strength were measured preoperatively and at three, nine, and 15 weeks postoperatively. Symptom severity and functional status were assessed using the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) preoperatively and at 15 weeks postoperatively. Longitudinal changes in grip and key pinch strength were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance, while changes in BCTQ symptom severity and functional status scores from baseline to 15 weeks were analyzed using paired-samples t-tests. Grip and key pinch strength demonstrated an early reduction during the postoperative period, followed by progressive improvement at subsequent follow-up assessments. Grip strength declined at three weeks, returned toward preoperative values by nine weeks, and exceeded preoperative values by 15 weeks postoperatively (27.52 ± 9.22 kg preoperatively vs. 32.33 ± 7.77 kg at 15 weeks; p < 0.001), while key pinch strength showed a similar recovery pattern over time (7.33 ± 1.77 kg preoperatively vs. 8.10 ± 1.86 kg at 15 weeks; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcomes demonstrated marked improvement, with significant reductions in BCTQ symptom severity scores (3.22 ± 0.55 to 1.00 ± 0.00; p < 0.001) and functional status scores (2.79 ± 0.62 to 1.02 ± 0.08; p < 0.001) at follow-up. Early postoperative recovery following carpal tunnel release is characterized by a transient decline in grip and key pinch strength at three weeks, return toward baseline by nine weeks, and improvement beyond baseline by 15 weeks. Objective strength measures and patient-reported outcomes provide complementary information regarding recovery dynamics and may assist clinicians in monitoring early postoperative recovery after carpal tunnel release.

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.

Background. Open or wrist arthroscopic release of carpal tunnel is a relatively safe and reliable method. However, there is still some debate as to which of these various surgical methods is superior. Therefore, this study provides more clinical evidence by comparing the clinical efficacy of open and endoscopic single-channel bowl release in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Methods. The study conducted a retrospective analysis from January 2010 to January 2021. A total of 105 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 56 patients in the open carpal tunnel Release (OCTR) group and 49 patients in the single channel carpal tunnel release (SCCTR) group. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative symptom improvement and functional recovery of the patients were compared. Results. The results of this study showed that the surgical incision healed well in all patients and complete remission of entrapment symptoms. Compared with the OCTR group, the SCCTR group had reduced surgical and hospital duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative scar pain score, and time required to return to normal lifestyle, and the SCCTR group had a lower incidence of sympathetic dystrophy and significantly improved clinical symptoms. Conclusion. Single Channel Carpal Tunnel Release under Carpal Arthroscopy in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome can achieve reliable clinical efficacy. It can relieve symptoms such as hand numbness and improve hand function. Postoperative pain and other complications are low, and worthy of clinical promotion.

BackgroundEndoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) both have advantages and disadvantages for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). We compared the effectiveness and safety of ECTR and OCTR based on evidence from a high-level randomized controlled trial.MethodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Medline to identify relevant articles published until August 2019. Data regarding operative time, grip strength, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire scores, digital sensation, patient satisfaction, key pinch strength, return to work time, and complications were extracted and compared. All mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were expressed as ECTR relative to OCTR.ResultsOur meta-analysis contained twenty-eight studies. ECTR was associated with significantly higher satisfaction rates (MD, 3.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43 to 4.82; P = 0.0003), greater key pinch strengths (MD, 0.79 kg; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.32; P = 0.003), earlier return to work times (MD, − 7.25 days; 95% CI, − 14.31 to − 0.19; P = 0.04), higher transient nerve injury rates (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.37 to 17.25; P = 0.01), and a lower incidence of scar-related complications (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.59; P = 0.004). The permanent nerve injury showed no significant differences between the two methods (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.58 to 6.40; P = 0.28).ConclusionsOverall, evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that ECTR results in better recovery of daily life functions compared to OCTR, as revealed by higher satisfaction rates, greater key pinch strengths, earlier return to work times, and fewer scar-related complications. Our findings suggest that patients with CTS can be effectively managed with ECTR.

IntroductionThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) versus open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) in treating carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), focusing on symptom relief, functional recovery and post-operative complications. MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 44 patients diagnosed with CTS, randomly assigned to undergo either ECTR (n=23) or OCTR (n=21). Parameters evaluated included post-operative pain, grip strength, functional status using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and time to return to work. ResultsPatients who underwent ECTR demonstrated superior functional recovery and quicker return to daily and work activities compared to those in the OCTR group. Grip strength improvement post-surgery showed no significant difference between the groups. However, ECTR patients reported significantly lower DASH scores and faster return to work, indicating better outcomes. There were fewer reports of post-operative complications and scar sensitivity in the ECTR group. ConclusionECTR provides an effective alternative to OCTR for CTS treatment, with advantages in functional recovery speed, reduced post-operative discomfort and faster return to work. These findings support the adoption of ECTR as a preferred surgical approach for CTS, highlighting its potential to improve patient outcomes with minimal complications.