A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopic and open carpal tunnel decompression
- PMID: 15457025
- DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000135850.37523.d0
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopic and open carpal tunnel decompression
Abstract
Controversy exists regarding the benefit of endoscopic carpal tunnel release versus open carpal tunnel release in terms of grip/pinch strength, scar tenderness, pain, return to work, reversible/irreversible nerve damage, and adverse effects. Although a number of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have been published on the subject, to date, no large definitive randomized controlled trial or meta-analysis has been performed comparing endoscopic to open carpal tunnel release. This meta-analysis was undertaken to address the effectiveness of endoscopic carpal tunnel release relative to open carpal tunnel release. Key outcome measures from 13 randomized controlled trials were extracted and statistically combined. Heterogeneity was observed in three of the outcomes (i.e., grip strength, pain, and return to work), but the causes of heterogeneity could not be explained because of insufficient detail in the reported studies. Using the Jadad et al. scale, nine of 13 studies were of low methodologic quality. The effect sizes were compared between the studies that were rated as high quality and the studies that were rated as low quality on the Jadad et al. scale. Similarly, the studies that were rated as high quality on the Gerritsen et al. scale were compared with those that were rated as low quality. No clinically significant difference in effect sizes was apparent between studies of high and low methodologic quality. This meta-analysis supports the conclusion that endoscopic carpal tunnel release is favored over the open carpal tunnel release in terms of a reduction in scar tenderness and increase in grip and pinch strength at a 12-week follow-up. With regard to symptom relief and return to work, the data are inconclusive. Irreversible nerve damage is uncommon in either technique; however, there is an increased susceptibility to reversible nerve injury that is three times as likely to occur with endoscopic carpal tunnel release than with open carpal tunnel release.
Similar articles
-
Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Apr 27;21(1):272. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03306-1. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020. PMID: 32340621 Free PMC article.
-
Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Mar;473(3):1120-32. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3835-z. Epub 2014 Aug 19. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015. PMID: 25135849 Free PMC article.
-
Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release for idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.J Orthop Surg Res. 2015 Jan 28;10:12. doi: 10.1186/s13018-014-0148-6. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015. PMID: 25627324 Free PMC article.
-
Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel decompression.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Apr;134(4):585-93. doi: 10.1007/s00402-013-1898-z. Epub 2014 Jan 12. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014. PMID: 24414237 Review.
-
Single-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release compared with open release : a prospective, randomized trial.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Jul;84(7):1107-15. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200207000-00003. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002. PMID: 12107308 Clinical Trial.
Cited by
-
Endoscopic Versus Open Cubital Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Hand (N Y). 2016 Mar;11(1):36-44. doi: 10.1177/1558944715616097. Epub 2016 Jan 14. Hand (N Y). 2016. PMID: 27418887 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A knowledge-based approach for carpal tunnel segmentation from magnetic resonance images.J Digit Imaging. 2013 Jun;26(3):510-20. doi: 10.1007/s10278-012-9530-2. J Digit Imaging. 2013. PMID: 23053905 Free PMC article.
-
Open versus Single- or Dual-Portal Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Hand (N Y). 2023 Sep;18(6):978-986. doi: 10.1177/15589447221075665. Epub 2022 Feb 18. Hand (N Y). 2023. PMID: 35179060 Free PMC article.
-
The Functional Outcome of Mini Carpal Tunnel Release.J Hand Microsurg. 2017 Apr;9(1):6-10. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1598089. Epub 2017 Jan 31. J Hand Microsurg. 2017. PMID: 28442855 Free PMC article.
-
Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Carpal Tunnel Release Are Statistically Fragile: A Systematic Review.Hand (N Y). 2025 Jun 27:15589447251348505. doi: 10.1177/15589447251348505. Online ahead of print. Hand (N Y). 2025. PMID: 40576202 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical