Loading…

Comparative analysis between minimal access versus traditional accesses in carpal tunnel syndrome: A perspective randomised study

Summary Introduction Carpal tunnel decompression with division of the transverse carpal ligament has been a highly successful procedure for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The standard longitudinal incision technique, with a long curvilinear incision, has been the optimal treatment procedur...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery reconstructive & aesthetic surgery, 2014-02, Vol.67 (2), p.237-243
Main Authors: Tarallo, Mauro, Fino, Pasquale, Sorvillo, Valentina, Parisi, Paola, Scuderi, Nicolò
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-a0caba6f400589c396f2854a86da22c6557feb73090f28950d5ecae7fbdb5d8f3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-a0caba6f400589c396f2854a86da22c6557feb73090f28950d5ecae7fbdb5d8f3
container_end_page 243
container_issue 2
container_start_page 237
container_title Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery
container_volume 67
creator Tarallo, Mauro
Fino, Pasquale
Sorvillo, Valentina
Parisi, Paola
Scuderi, Nicolò
description Summary Introduction Carpal tunnel decompression with division of the transverse carpal ligament has been a highly successful procedure for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The standard longitudinal incision technique, with a long curvilinear incision, has been the optimal treatment procedure for surgical decompression of the median nerve, for many surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the traditional open carpal tunnel release (TOCTR) technique with the minimal-access carpal tunnel release (MACTR) technique for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), presenting our experience. Materials and methods A total of 120 patients eligible for carpal tunnel decompression were recruited into the study. The patients were randomised for treatment allocation, at a 1:1 ratio, resulting in 60 patients in group A, treated by standard TOCTR, and 60 patients in group B, treated by MACTR. To evaluate patients' outcomes we used the Boston Carpal Tunnel (BCT) questionnaire; the formed scar was evaluated according to the Vancouver scale and short- and long-term complications. Statistical analysis was performed by the chi-squared test and analysis of variance (ANOVA); Excel was the program used. Results In our series, there was no complication related to the surgical intervention of any injury to nerve, artery or tendon structures. In each section of the BCT questionnaire, patients in group B had significantly better results than patients in group A at both 6 and 12 months' follow-up ( p  
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.10.033
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1492703707</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1748681513005949</els_id><sourcerecordid>1492703707</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-a0caba6f400589c396f2854a86da22c6557feb73090f28950d5ecae7fbdb5d8f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kTuP1TAQhSMEYh_wByiQS5pc_IjjGCGk1RULSCtRALXl2BPJIXGCJ7koJf8ch7tsQUFla-acsec7RfGC0QOjrH7dH9p-xgOnTOTCgQrxqLhkjWpKKoV-nO-qasq6YfKiuELsKa0Eq-TT4oJXXFOt1GXx6ziNs012CScgNtphw4CkheUnQCRjiGG0A7HOASI5QcIVyZKsD0uY4kMHkIRInE1zLi1rjDAQ3KJP0whvyA2Zs3EG9-eRZKOfxoDgCS6r354VTzo7IDy_P6-Lb7fvvx4_lnefP3w63tyVrmJsKS11trV1V1EqG-2ErjveyMo2tbecu1pK1UGrBNU0N7SkXoKzoLrWt9I3nbguXp3nzmn6sQIuJn_CwTDYCNOKhlWaKyoUVVnKz1KXJsQEnZlT5pA2w6jZ0Zve7OjNjn6vZfTZ9PJ-_tqO4B8sf1lnwduzAPKWpwDJoAsQHfiQMhvjp_D_-e_-sbshx-Ps8B02wH5aUw4k72GQG2q-7OHv2TORielKi98y362t</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1492703707</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative analysis between minimal access versus traditional accesses in carpal tunnel syndrome: A perspective randomised study</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024</source><creator>Tarallo, Mauro ; Fino, Pasquale ; Sorvillo, Valentina ; Parisi, Paola ; Scuderi, Nicolò</creator><creatorcontrib>Tarallo, Mauro ; Fino, Pasquale ; Sorvillo, Valentina ; Parisi, Paola ; Scuderi, Nicolò</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Introduction Carpal tunnel decompression with division of the transverse carpal ligament has been a highly successful procedure for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The standard longitudinal incision technique, with a long curvilinear incision, has been the optimal treatment procedure for surgical decompression of the median nerve, for many surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the traditional open carpal tunnel release (TOCTR) technique with the minimal-access carpal tunnel release (MACTR) technique for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), presenting our experience. Materials and methods A total of 120 patients eligible for carpal tunnel decompression were recruited into the study. The patients were randomised for treatment allocation, at a 1:1 ratio, resulting in 60 patients in group A, treated by standard TOCTR, and 60 patients in group B, treated by MACTR. To evaluate patients' outcomes we used the Boston Carpal Tunnel (BCT) questionnaire; the formed scar was evaluated according to the Vancouver scale and short- and long-term complications. Statistical analysis was performed by the chi-squared test and analysis of variance (ANOVA); Excel was the program used. Results In our series, there was no complication related to the surgical intervention of any injury to nerve, artery or tendon structures. In each section of the BCT questionnaire, patients in group B had significantly better results than patients in group A at both 6 and 12 months' follow-up ( p  &lt; 0.001). For the Vancouver scar scale, there was a significant difference between two groups' scores; group B patients had significant improvements compared with group A patients. Conclusions In our perspective randomised study, MACTR showed statistically significant improvement compared to TOCTR. The patient tolerance is reasonably high and the procedure is compatible with the current minimal invasive trend in surgery.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1748-6815</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-0539</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.10.033</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24290977</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Aged ; BCT ; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome - surgery ; Cicatrix - etiology ; Cicatrix - pathology ; Decompression, Surgical - adverse effects ; Decompression, Surgical - methods ; Female ; Humans ; MACTR ; Male ; Median nerve ; Median release ; Middle Aged ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods ; Patient Satisfaction ; Plastic Surgery ; Return to Work ; STC ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Time Factors ; TOCTR</subject><ispartof>Journal of plastic, reconstructive &amp; aesthetic surgery, 2014-02, Vol.67 (2), p.237-243</ispartof><rights>British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons</rights><rights>2013 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-a0caba6f400589c396f2854a86da22c6557feb73090f28950d5ecae7fbdb5d8f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-a0caba6f400589c396f2854a86da22c6557feb73090f28950d5ecae7fbdb5d8f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24290977$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tarallo, Mauro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fino, Pasquale</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sorvillo, Valentina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parisi, Paola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scuderi, Nicolò</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative analysis between minimal access versus traditional accesses in carpal tunnel syndrome: A perspective randomised study</title><title>Journal of plastic, reconstructive &amp; aesthetic surgery</title><addtitle>J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg</addtitle><description>Summary Introduction Carpal tunnel decompression with division of the transverse carpal ligament has been a highly successful procedure for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The standard longitudinal incision technique, with a long curvilinear incision, has been the optimal treatment procedure for surgical decompression of the median nerve, for many surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the traditional open carpal tunnel release (TOCTR) technique with the minimal-access carpal tunnel release (MACTR) technique for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), presenting our experience. Materials and methods A total of 120 patients eligible for carpal tunnel decompression were recruited into the study. The patients were randomised for treatment allocation, at a 1:1 ratio, resulting in 60 patients in group A, treated by standard TOCTR, and 60 patients in group B, treated by MACTR. To evaluate patients' outcomes we used the Boston Carpal Tunnel (BCT) questionnaire; the formed scar was evaluated according to the Vancouver scale and short- and long-term complications. Statistical analysis was performed by the chi-squared test and analysis of variance (ANOVA); Excel was the program used. Results In our series, there was no complication related to the surgical intervention of any injury to nerve, artery or tendon structures. In each section of the BCT questionnaire, patients in group B had significantly better results than patients in group A at both 6 and 12 months' follow-up ( p  &lt; 0.001). For the Vancouver scar scale, there was a significant difference between two groups' scores; group B patients had significant improvements compared with group A patients. Conclusions In our perspective randomised study, MACTR showed statistically significant improvement compared to TOCTR. The patient tolerance is reasonably high and the procedure is compatible with the current minimal invasive trend in surgery.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>BCT</subject><subject>Carpal Tunnel Syndrome - surgery</subject><subject>Cicatrix - etiology</subject><subject>Cicatrix - pathology</subject><subject>Decompression, Surgical - adverse effects</subject><subject>Decompression, Surgical - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>MACTR</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Median nerve</subject><subject>Median release</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Plastic Surgery</subject><subject>Return to Work</subject><subject>STC</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>TOCTR</subject><issn>1748-6815</issn><issn>1878-0539</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kTuP1TAQhSMEYh_wByiQS5pc_IjjGCGk1RULSCtRALXl2BPJIXGCJ7koJf8ch7tsQUFla-acsec7RfGC0QOjrH7dH9p-xgOnTOTCgQrxqLhkjWpKKoV-nO-qasq6YfKiuELsKa0Eq-TT4oJXXFOt1GXx6ziNs012CScgNtphw4CkheUnQCRjiGG0A7HOASI5QcIVyZKsD0uY4kMHkIRInE1zLi1rjDAQ3KJP0whvyA2Zs3EG9-eRZKOfxoDgCS6r354VTzo7IDy_P6-Lb7fvvx4_lnefP3w63tyVrmJsKS11trV1V1EqG-2ErjveyMo2tbecu1pK1UGrBNU0N7SkXoKzoLrWt9I3nbguXp3nzmn6sQIuJn_CwTDYCNOKhlWaKyoUVVnKz1KXJsQEnZlT5pA2w6jZ0Zve7OjNjn6vZfTZ9PJ-_tqO4B8sf1lnwduzAPKWpwDJoAsQHfiQMhvjp_D_-e_-sbshx-Ps8B02wH5aUw4k72GQG2q-7OHv2TORielKi98y362t</recordid><startdate>20140201</startdate><enddate>20140201</enddate><creator>Tarallo, Mauro</creator><creator>Fino, Pasquale</creator><creator>Sorvillo, Valentina</creator><creator>Parisi, Paola</creator><creator>Scuderi, Nicolò</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140201</creationdate><title>Comparative analysis between minimal access versus traditional accesses in carpal tunnel syndrome: A perspective randomised study</title><author>Tarallo, Mauro ; Fino, Pasquale ; Sorvillo, Valentina ; Parisi, Paola ; Scuderi, Nicolò</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-a0caba6f400589c396f2854a86da22c6557feb73090f28950d5ecae7fbdb5d8f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>BCT</topic><topic>Carpal Tunnel Syndrome - surgery</topic><topic>Cicatrix - etiology</topic><topic>Cicatrix - pathology</topic><topic>Decompression, Surgical - adverse effects</topic><topic>Decompression, Surgical - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>MACTR</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Median nerve</topic><topic>Median release</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Plastic Surgery</topic><topic>Return to Work</topic><topic>STC</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>TOCTR</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tarallo, Mauro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fino, Pasquale</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sorvillo, Valentina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parisi, Paola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scuderi, Nicolò</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of plastic, reconstructive &amp; aesthetic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tarallo, Mauro</au><au>Fino, Pasquale</au><au>Sorvillo, Valentina</au><au>Parisi, Paola</au><au>Scuderi, Nicolò</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative analysis between minimal access versus traditional accesses in carpal tunnel syndrome: A perspective randomised study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of plastic, reconstructive &amp; aesthetic surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg</addtitle><date>2014-02-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>237</spage><epage>243</epage><pages>237-243</pages><issn>1748-6815</issn><eissn>1878-0539</eissn><abstract>Summary Introduction Carpal tunnel decompression with division of the transverse carpal ligament has been a highly successful procedure for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The standard longitudinal incision technique, with a long curvilinear incision, has been the optimal treatment procedure for surgical decompression of the median nerve, for many surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the traditional open carpal tunnel release (TOCTR) technique with the minimal-access carpal tunnel release (MACTR) technique for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), presenting our experience. Materials and methods A total of 120 patients eligible for carpal tunnel decompression were recruited into the study. The patients were randomised for treatment allocation, at a 1:1 ratio, resulting in 60 patients in group A, treated by standard TOCTR, and 60 patients in group B, treated by MACTR. To evaluate patients' outcomes we used the Boston Carpal Tunnel (BCT) questionnaire; the formed scar was evaluated according to the Vancouver scale and short- and long-term complications. Statistical analysis was performed by the chi-squared test and analysis of variance (ANOVA); Excel was the program used. Results In our series, there was no complication related to the surgical intervention of any injury to nerve, artery or tendon structures. In each section of the BCT questionnaire, patients in group B had significantly better results than patients in group A at both 6 and 12 months' follow-up ( p  &lt; 0.001). For the Vancouver scar scale, there was a significant difference between two groups' scores; group B patients had significant improvements compared with group A patients. Conclusions In our perspective randomised study, MACTR showed statistically significant improvement compared to TOCTR. The patient tolerance is reasonably high and the procedure is compatible with the current minimal invasive trend in surgery.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>24290977</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.bjps.2013.10.033</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1748-6815
ispartof Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery, 2014-02, Vol.67 (2), p.237-243
issn 1748-6815
1878-0539
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1492703707
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024
subjects Aged
BCT
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome - surgery
Cicatrix - etiology
Cicatrix - pathology
Decompression, Surgical - adverse effects
Decompression, Surgical - methods
Female
Humans
MACTR
Male
Median nerve
Median release
Middle Aged
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods
Patient Satisfaction
Plastic Surgery
Return to Work
STC
Surveys and Questionnaires
Time Factors
TOCTR
title Comparative analysis between minimal access versus traditional accesses in carpal tunnel syndrome: A perspective randomised study
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T03%3A20%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20analysis%20between%20minimal%20access%20versus%20traditional%20accesses%20in%20carpal%20tunnel%20syndrome:%20A%20perspective%20randomised%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20plastic,%20reconstructive%20&%20aesthetic%20surgery&rft.au=Tarallo,%20Mauro&rft.date=2014-02-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=237&rft.epage=243&rft.pages=237-243&rft.issn=1748-6815&rft.eissn=1878-0539&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.bjps.2013.10.033&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1492703707%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-a0caba6f400589c396f2854a86da22c6557feb73090f28950d5ecae7fbdb5d8f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1492703707&rft_id=info:pmid/24290977&rfr_iscdi=true