Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparing endoscopic and conventional surgery techniques for carpal tunnel syndrome: A retrospective study.
Donati, Danilo; Goretti, Chiara; Tedeschi, Roberto; Boccolari, Paolo; Ricci, Vincenzo; Farì, Giacomo; Vita, Fabio; Tarallo, Luigi.
Affiliation
  • Donati D; Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Policlinico di Modena, Modena, Italy.
  • Goretti C; Clinical and Experimental Medicine PhD Program, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
  • Tedeschi R; Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Polyclinic of Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
  • Boccolari P; Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
  • Ricci V; Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Policlinico di Modena, Modena, Italy.
  • Farì G; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Unit, Luigi Sacco University Hospital, 20121 Milano, Italy.
  • Vita F; Department of Experimental Medicine (Di.Me.S.), University of Salento, Lecce, Italy.
  • Tarallo L; IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 1st Orthopaedics and Traumatology clinic, Bologna.
JPRAS Open ; 41: 80-87, 2024 Sep.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38911671
ABSTRACT

Introduction:

This 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.

Methods:

A 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.

Results:

Patients 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.

Conclusion:

ECTR 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.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: JPRAS Open Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Italia

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: JPRAS Open Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Italia