Advertisement

Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: Setup of a Prospective Randomised Study

  • W. Girsch
  • M. Rab
  • K. F. Schrögendorfer
  • L.-P. Kamolz
  • T. Paternostro
  • G. Wagner
  • F. Schlemmer
  • H. Beck
  • R. Högler
  • O. Kandel
  • T. Pand
  • M. Frey
Part of the Update in Plastic Surgery book series (UPDATEPLASTIC)

Abstract

When Chow and Okutsu in 1989 introduced the endoscopic technique for carpal tunnel release an overall interest in this new technique led to proliferation of numerous methods of endoscopic releasing with claims of enhanced results while sustaining the efficacy of traditional “open” techniques (Chow 1989, Okutsu et al. 1989, Brown et al. 1993, Feinstein 1993, Resnik et al. 1991, Skoff et al. 1993). In these series the method turned out to be reliable, producing reasonable results with low comphcation rates. Nevertheless, a distinct clinical advantage of the endoscopic method compared with the open technique could not be presented until now. A clinical advantage from the endoscopic technique is mandatory, simply to justify the higher costs for this kind of surgery. The small number of prospective comparisons published in the literature (Agee et al. 1992, Brown et al. 1993, Hallock et al. 1994, Worseg et al. 1996) concluded that both methods produce similar results. In these studies the diagnosis was usually defined as idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome without respect to the duration of the patient’s history and the severity of the nerve compression syndrome. The question remains open whether a distinct subgroup of patients may profit to a greater extent from the endoscopic procedure than other subgroups. A clinical study was designed in order either to establish subgroups of patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome and to compare endoscopic with “open” carpal tunnel release in a prospective randomised study applied to the defined subgroups of patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome.

Keywords

Grip Strength Median Nerve Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Carpal Tunnel Endoscopic Technique 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agee JM, McCarroll HR, Tortosa RD, Berry DA, Szabo RM, Peimer CA (1992) Endoscopic release of the carpal tunnel: a randomised prospective multicenter study. J Hand Surg 17A: 987–95Google Scholar
  2. Brown MG, Rothenberg ES, Keyser B, Woloszyn T, Wolford ARN (1993) Results of 1236 endoscopic carpal tunnel release procedures using the Brown technique. Contemp Orthopaedics 27, No 3Google Scholar
  3. Brown RA, Gelbermann RH, Seiler JG, Abrahamson SO, Weiland AJ, Urbaniak JR, Schoenfeld DA, Furcolo D ( 1993) Carpal tunnel release: a prospective, randomised assessment of open and endoscopic methods. J Bone Jt Surg 75A: 1265–75Google Scholar
  4. Chow JCY (1989) Endoscopic release of the carpal ligament: a new technique for carpal tunnel syndrome. Arthroscopy 5(1): 19–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dellon AL, Keller KM (1997) Computer assisted quantitative sensormotor testing on patients with carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes. Ann Plast Surg 38: 493–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feinstein PA (1993) Endoscopic carpal tunnel release in a community-based series. J Hand Surg 18A: 996–1002Google Scholar
  7. Gelberman RH, North AR (1991) Carpal tunnel release. In: Gelberman RH (ed) Operative nerve repair and reconstruction. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 899–920Google Scholar
  8. Gerbershagen HU, Panhans C (1978) Organizational bases for management of chronic pain. Klin Anaesthesiol Intensivther 18: 251–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hallock GG, Lutz DA (1995) Prospective comparison of minimal incision “open” and two-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release. Plast Reconstr Surg 96: 941–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Levine D, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, Daltroy LH, Hohl GG, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1993) A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg HA: 1585–91Google Scholar
  11. Millesi H (1985) Zur Bewertung der Ergebnisse nach Nervenwiederherstellung. In: Nigst H (ed) Nervenwiederherstellung nach traumatischen Läsionen. Bericht der VII. Basler Handchirurgischen Arbeitstagung, Hippokrates Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 49–66Google Scholar
  12. Netscher D, Mosharrafa A, Lee BS, Polsen Ch, Choi H, Steadman AK, Thornby J (1997) Transverse carpal tunnel ligament: its effect on flexor tendon excursion, morphologic changes of the carpal canal, and on pinch and grip strengths after open carpal tunnel release. Plast Reconstr Surg 100: 636–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Okutsu I, Ninomiya S, Takatori Y, Ugawa Y (1989) Endoscopic management of carpal tunnel syndrome. Arthroscopy 5: 11–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Resnik CT, Miller BW (1991) Endoscopic carpal tunnel release using the subligamentous two-portal technique. Contemp Orthop 22: 269–77Google Scholar
  15. Skoff HD, Sklar R (1993) Endoscopic median nerve decompression: early experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 94, No 5: 691–94Google Scholar
  16. Worseg AP, Kuzbari R, Korak K, Höcker K, Wiederer C, Tschabitscher M, Holle J (1996) Endoscopic carpal tunnel release using a single-portal system. Brit J Plast Surg 49: 1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Young VL, Logan SE, Fernando B, Grasse P, Seaton M, Young AE (1992) Grip strength before and after carpal tunnel decompression. Southern Med J 85, 9: 897–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Girsch
  • M. Rab
  • K. F. Schrögendorfer
  • L.-P. Kamolz
  • T. Paternostro
  • G. Wagner
  • F. Schlemmer
  • H. Beck
  • R. Högler
  • O. Kandel
  • T. Pand
  • M. Frey

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations