Mini-open carpal tunnel release: technique, feasibility and clinical outcome compared to the conventional procedure in a long-term follow-up.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2022
01 06 2022
Historique:
received:
15
05
2021
accepted:
15
04
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
7
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We sought to evaluate the findings of our anatomically landmarks based mini-open procedure (MCTR) through a palmar approach and to compare its outcome and practicability to the conventional method (OCTR). The study consisted of 100 matched patients (n = 50 MCTR, n = 50 OCTR) with a minimum follow-up of three years. The outcome was characterized via the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH), Symptom Severity Scale (SSS), Functional Status Scale (FSC), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). All adverse events were observed. An alpha of 0.05 and a confidence level of 95% were set for statistical analyses. Both techniques showed comparable functional results in a long-term period (mean follow-up MCTR: 60 months and OCTR: 54 months). MCTR versus OCTR at mean: DASH: 4.6/8.3 (p = 0.398), SSS: 1.3/1.2 (p = 0.534), FSC: 1.3/1.2 (p = 0.617), VAS: 0.4/0.7 (p = 0.246). The MCTR convinced through a lower rate of scar sensibility (MCTR: 0% vs. OCTR: 12%, 0/50 vs. 6/50; p = 0.007) and pillar pain, as well as a shortened recovery period and surgical time relative to the OCTR. Low complication rates were observed in both groups, no recurrences had to be documented. The MCTR procedure revealed a similar good clinical outcome as the conventional technique. MCTR is a minimally-invasive, reliable, fast and simple procedure with an obvious benefit regarding scar sensibility.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35650245
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-11649-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-11649-z
pmc: PMC9159983
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9122Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Hand Surg Br. 1995 Aug;20(4):470-4
pubmed: 7594985
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Feb;101(2):418-24; discussion 425-6
pubmed: 9462775
Lancet Neurol. 2016 Nov;15(12):1273-1284
pubmed: 27751557
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2013 Jul;38(6):646-50
pubmed: 23340761
Lancet. 1955 Mar 26;268(6865):654
pubmed: 14354962
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec;120(7):1911-1921
pubmed: 18090755
J Hand Surg Am. 2018 Aug;43(8):775.e1-775.e8
pubmed: 29482955
J Hand Surg Am. 2013 Aug;38(8):1530-9
pubmed: 23809470
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2016 Apr;4(2):150-5
pubmed: 27200394
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Sep;138(3):641-647
pubmed: 27152579
J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Feb;34(2):266-72
pubmed: 19181226
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Jan;121(1):181-185
pubmed: 18176219
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jun 19;95(12):1067-73
pubmed: 23783202
Hand (N Y). 2019 Jul;14(4):471-476
pubmed: 29557679
J Clin Med. 2021 Sep 17;10(18):
pubmed: 34575319
J Hand Surg Am. 2018 Sep;43(9):853-861
pubmed: 29759797
JAMA. 1999 Jul 14;282(2):153-8
pubmed: 10411196
Hand Clin. 2002 May;18(2):339-45
pubmed: 12371037
Hand (N Y). 2012 Dec;7(4):351-6
pubmed: 24294152
Hand Clin. 1996 May;12(2):313-23
pubmed: 8724583
Clin Anat. 2017 May;30(4):512-516
pubmed: 28247938
Clin Orthop Surg. 2014 Sep;6(3):253-7
pubmed: 25177448
Int J Surg. 2018 Apr;52:105-109
pubmed: 29471152
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 May;471(5):1548-54
pubmed: 23100191
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2012 Sep;114(7):965-8
pubmed: 22421246
J Hand Microsurg. 2017 Apr;9(1):6-10
pubmed: 28442855
J Hand Surg Am. 2005 May;30(3):493-9
pubmed: 15925158
Am J Ind Med. 1987;11(3):343-58
pubmed: 3578290
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977 Oct;60(4):539-47
pubmed: 909963
Hand (N Y). 2014 Mar;9(1):48-51
pubmed: 24570637
Hand (N Y). 2010 Jun;5(2):155-9
pubmed: 19806407
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Mar;473(3):1120-32
pubmed: 25135849
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2008 Jun;33(3):332-6
pubmed: 18562367