Skip to main content
Download PDF

Short incision versus minimally invasive surgery with tool-kit for carpal tunnel syndrome release: a prospective randomized control trial to evaluate the anterior wrist pain and time to return to work or activities

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 23, Article number: 708 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Trial design

The prospective randomized controlled trial.

Background

This study compares outcomes in terms of early postoperative anterior wrist pain and time to return to work or activities of daily living of patients who underwent carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) release with short incision and those who had minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with CTS kits.

Methods

A total of 24 patients diagnosed with primary CTS confirmed with electrodiagnosis at an academic university hospital were randomly assigned into one of two groups of 12 patients each: a short incision group and an MIS with tool-kit group using computer-generated block randomization (block of four). Sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes were used in the allocation concealment process. In the short incision group, skin was incised longitudinally from Kaplan’s line to the area distal to transverse wrist crease (2.5–4.0 cm) while in the tool-kit group, an incision of less than 2.5 cm. was made using special MIS-CTS kits. Primary outcomes evaluated include visual analogue scale (VAS) measurement of pain intensity in the anterior carpal area both while at rest and while conducting daily activities at the 2nd week postoperatively as well as the time to return to activities of daily living and work. Improvement in the Michigan hand questionnaire (MHQ) score, a secondary outcome, was also measured at the 2nd week postoperatively. Patients, allocator and outcome assessor were blinded.

Results

Demographic data, including preoperative electrodiagnostic severity and occupation, were similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences in terms of VAS of the early postoperative anterior carpal area at rest (p > 0.99), while conducting daily activities (p = 0.89) and time to return to activities of daily living (p = 0.46) and work (p = 0.24). The MHQ score improvement at the 2nd week postoperatively showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.95). The MIS wound length in the tool-kit group was significantly shorter than in the short incision group (1.95 vs 2.92 cm, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

There is no difference in early postoperative anterior wrist pain, time to return to work or to activities of daily living between the surgical techniques. Short incision is recommended for benefit in term of cost-effectiveness, while MIS with tool-kit could be preferred in patients who concerned in cosmetic appearance between the surgical techniques.

Trial registration

www.clinicaltrials.in.th (TCTR20200530003). Registered 30 May 2020.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common compressive neuropathy in the upper extremity, causing pain, numbness, tingling and weakness of the hand and leads to long-term work disability [1, 2]. The prevalence of clinical CTS in the general population has been reported to be up to 3.8% [3, 4]. It is more common in middle-aged females and in specific populations including workers whose occupation involves forceful and repetitive wrist motion and employees in industrial settings [5,6,7].

There is evidence that surgical release provides better results than conservative treatment in terms of reduced symptom severity and improved function at 6 months after treatment [8,9,10]. Meta-analyses of previous publications have reported no significant difference in terms of symptom relief or functional improvement in the short- or long-term between open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release [11,12,13]. However, earlier return to work or activities of daily living and lower scar-related complications were found in smaller incision group with large difference of surgical wound length (open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release or limited-incision versus standard-incision) [11,12,13,14,15].

The standard incision is generally defined as a long, curvilinear palmar incision [16, 17]. Presently, a short incision confined to the palm of the hand requiring no special instruments is commonly used procedure [18]. A minimally invasive surgery (MIS) technique with special tools to improve visualization is used in cases where a smaller incision is required [19]. Unlike the endoscopic technique, these surgical techniques do not require special training and does not involve a long learning curve [20].

A recent meta-analysis reported that a limited incision allows an earlier return to normal activities than the standard incision [15]. There were, however, some methodological flaws in that meta-analysis, e.g., it included retrospective studies and non-randomized studies which contained some bias [17, 21,22,23]. Additionally, most of the studies in that meta-analysis compared the standard long curvilinear palmar incision proximal to the distal wrist crease (wound lengths up to 7 cm.) to the MIS technique which has a much smaller surgical incision length that leads to decreased anterior wrist pain (scar tenderness, pillar pain) and thus to the ability to conduct activities of daily living and return to work sooner [18, 24,25,26]. Randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes between short incision and MIS with tool-kit in terms of early postoperative wrist pain and time to return to work and activities of daily living are still lacking. Those studies may provide different results due to the relatively small difference in surgical incision length.

The aim of this study is to compare early postoperative anterior wrist pain and time to return to work or activities of daily living between short incision and MIS with tool-kit in patients who underwent CTS release.

Material and methods

Study design and patients

A prospective, single center, randomized, parallel-group superiority trial was conducted at an academic university hospital between June 2020 and December 2021 following the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement [27]. A total 24 patients who underwent carpal tunnel release during that period were included in the trial which was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (ORT256206310) and registered in the Thai Clinical Trial Registry (TCTR20200530003, 30/05/2020). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to enrollment and randomization. Carpal tunnel syndrome patients who had been diagnosed by Orthopaedic hand staff according to the criteria of practice parameters for carpal tunnel syndrome [28] confirmed both by diagnosis and by grading severity via electrodiagnosis measurement evaluated by a Rehabilitation Medicine board-qualified staff member and who were scheduled for surgical treatment were included in the trial. All patients aged at least of 18 years who provided informed consent and who were able to communicate orally and to read and write were screened for inclusion. The exclusion criteria included a history of carpal tunnel or wrist surgeries in the affected hand, local anesthetic drug and Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioid allergy, a history of hand or wrist fracture, underlying rheumatoid arthritis, gout, hypothyroidism, active cervical radiculopathy, coagulation disorder, other concomitant nerve entrapments such as Guyon’s canal or cubital tunnel syndrome, concomitant hand or wrist disorders, e.g., stenosing tenosynovitis or osteoarthritis of the finger or hand at the time of enrollment, and pregnancy. All patients were enrolled by Orthopaedic hand staff (PA).

Demographic data, including age, sex, dominant hand, affected hand, graded severity (mild, moderate, severe due to electrodiagnosis measurement) [29], underlying diabetes mellitus, occupation (manual laborer, officer, housewife, unemployed, retired) were collected. Intention to treat analysis which interpreted the result according to the group they were originally assigned was performed.

Randomization and trial intervention

Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the two interventions, either short incision or MIS with tool-kit, using computer-generated block randomization (block of four). After randomization, sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes prepared by a person not involved in the trial were used in the allocation concealment process. The envelopes were opened just prior to skin preparation by the surgeon. All surgical procedures were performed by an experienced hand surgeon (PA) who was not involved in the outcome assessment process, and all patients were advised not to observe the operation. Thus, patients, allocator and outcome assessor were blinded to the study.

Preoperative preparation

The operations were performed in a minor operation room. All patients received 5–10 mL of 1% lidocaine with adrenaline 1:200,000 subcutaneous injection as wide-awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet (WALANT).

Short incision group [18]

A 2.5 to 4.0-cm-long incision was made along the line of the radial axis of the ring finger from Kaplan’s cardinal line to the area distal to the transverse wrist crease. After that, the subcutaneous tissue was bluntly dissected with a Stevens scissor and retractors were used to separate the borders of the incision. The palmar fascia was identified and divided. Then the transverse carpal ligament was identified and the mid portion of the ligament was incised with a no. 15 scalpel to provide access to the carpal tunnel. Stevens scissors were used to sever the distal and proximal portion of the transverse carpal ligament. Complete transverse carpal ligament release was confirmed by direct observation using a Ragnell retractor to maintain a clear surgical field (Fig. 1). The incisions were closed with vertical mattress 4/0 nylon sutures and a pressure bandage was applied.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Short incision showing complete transverse carpal ligament release under direct observation

Full size image

MIS with tool-kit group [19]

We used the third generation of MIS-CTS kits (ProMIS®) which was developed by Wongsiri et al. from Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Tailand for MIS carpal tunnel release with Wongsiri technique [19]. A 1.5–2.0 cm incision was made 2.0 cm distal to the wrist crease along the line of the radial axis of the ring finger. Subcutaneous tissue and the palmar aponeurosis were then bluntly dissected using a Stevens scissor. The navigator tip of a MIS-CTS View was inserted to create a working space just above the retinaculum area located on top of the transverse carpal ligament. The visual tube of the MIS-CTS View was inserted along the working space that had been created. Therefore, the transverse carpal ligament could be viewed obviously under the visual tube. The distal portion of the transverse carpal ligament was incised with a no.15 scalpel to enter the carpal tunnel. The freer of the MIS-CTS Cut was inserted into the carpal tunnel to free the median nerve from adhesion to the transverse carpal ligament. The knife of the MIS-CTS Cut was applied to completely and smoothly separate the transverse carpal ligament from the distal to the proximal portion. Complete transverse carpal ligament release was confirmed under direct observation via the visual tube of the MIS-CTS (Fig. 2). Skin closure was performed as described above.

Fig. 2
figure 2

MIS with tool-kit technique showing complete transverse carpal ligament release under direct observation

Full size image

Postoperative protocol

Patients were allowed to move their wrists, hands and fingers the same day that the surgery was performed. No wrist splint was needed. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or tramadol (oral form) were taken for a few days for postoperative pain control. Oral antibiotics were administered for a week. The original dressing and the surgical stitches were removed after 12 days.

Standard rescue protocol

In cases where complete transverse carpal ligament release could not be confirmed due to limited direct visualization, the incision was extended proximally to the wrist crease (standard incision).

Outcome measurement

The primary outcomes were postoperative anterior wrist pain at the 2nd week (postoperative days 12–14) and the time to return to work or activities of daily living. Postoperative anterior wrist pain was defined as pain from the surgical wound, scar or pillar pain [30] that caused the patient discomfort. We evaluated anterior wrist pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) both at rest and while conducting daily activities. We used the VAS instrument which had 11-point Numerical Rating Scale [31]. Time to return to work and to activities of daily living were measured from postoperative day 1 to the day the patient could perform at the same level as the day before surgery.

Secondary outcomes were functional and symptom severity improvement which were evaluated using the Thai Michigan hand questionnaire at the day before surgery and at the 2nd week postoperatively (postoperative days 12–14) [32].

Statistical analysis

The sample size was estimated using the formula for a randomized controlled trial for continuous data according to the study of Saw et al. [33]. The average VAS scale intensity of anterior wrist pain in the short incision group at the 2nd week postoperatively was 2.5 with standard deviation (SD) = 0.6. The minimal clinically significant difference of musculoskeletal pain intensity was 1 [34]. We hypothesized that MIS with tool-kit results in clinically significantly lower postoperative anterior wrist pain (VAS = 1.5) than short incision.

Estimated sample sizes for a two-sample means test.

t test assuming SD1 = SD2 = SD.

Ho: m2 = m1 versus Ha: m2! = m1.

Study parameters: alpha = 0.05, power = 0.80, delta = − 1.00, m = 2.5, m2 = 1.5, SD = 0.6.

Estimated sample sizes: total number = 14, number per group = 7.

A total of 7 patients in each group were needed to achieve 80% statistical power at the 5% significance level to detect the size of the input effect. To compensate for potential patient dropouts, we used a sample size of 12 patients per group. There is no generally accepted minimal clinically significant difference in time to return to work or activities of daily living. For that reason, we used the sample size mentioned above. We hypothesized that the time to return to work or to activities of daily living would be correlated with postoperative anterior wrist pain, i.e., the less postoperative anterior wrist pain, the earlier the return to work and/or activities of daily living.

The trial compared the outcomes in patients who underwent MIS with tool-kit and those who had a short incision in terms of postoperative anterior wrist pain, time to return to work or activities of daily living, and functional and symptom severity improvement. Continuous variables, i.e., postoperative anterior wrist pain, time to return to activities of daily living and functional and symptom severity improvement, were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney rank-sum test as the data were nonnormally distributed. Continuous variables, including time to return to work and wound length, were assessed using the Student’s t-test as the data were normally distributed. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata Statistical software 15 (Stata Corp, LP, College Station, TX). A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Population

All enrolled patients (n = 24) were assigned to one of two groups, either the short incision group or the MIS with tool-kit group in a 1:1 ratio. After randomization, the number of patients in both groups was equal (12 patients per group). One patient in the MIS with tool-kit group failed to appear at the scheduled follow up and was dropped from the analysis (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

CONSORT flow diagram

Full size image

There were no significant differences in demographic data between the MIS with tool-kit and the short incision groups in terms of age (P = 0.94), sex (P = 0.22), dominant hand (P > 0.99), affected hand (P = 0.68), severity as determined by electrodiagnosis measurement (P > 0.99), underlying diabetes mellitus (P = 0.48) or occupation (P = 0.49) (Table 1).

Table 1 Patient characteristics of the MIS with tool-kit and short incision groups before surgery
Full size table

Clinical outcomes

There was no significant difference between the MIS with tool-kit and the short incision groups in the primary outcomes: VAS of anterior wrist at rest (0(0–0) vs 0(0–0), P > 0.99) and while conducting daily activities (0(0–1) vs 0(0–1), P = 0.89) and time to return to activities of daily living (7 (SD 4) days vs 6 (SD 3) days, P=0.46) and work (14 (SD 8) days vs 11 (SD 5) days, P=0.24). MHQ score improvement, the secondary outcome, showed no significant difference between the groups (9 (2-31) vs 13 (1-32), P=0.95). The MIS with tool-kit group, however, did have a significantly shorter wound length than the short incision group (1.95 (SD 0.47) cm vs 2.92 (SD 0.56) cm, P < 0.01) (Table 2). No adverse events were observed. The results of each patient were shown in Supplement 1.

Table 2 Comparison of results after carpal tunnel release in the MIS with tool-kit and the incision groups
Full size table

Discussion

This randomized controlled trial demonstrated that there were no differences in terms of early postoperative anterior wrist pain or time to return to work or to activities of daily living between the MIS with tool-kit and the short incision patients who underwent CTS release. Our results differ significantly from a recent meta-analysis [15]. Among the reasons for the difference might be the relatively small difference in wound length between the MIS with tool-kit and the short incision groups (1.95 (SD 0.47) cm vs 2.92 (SD 0.56) cm) in this study which had small effect size. Most studies included in previous meta-analyses compared standard long curvilinear palmar incisions proximal to the distal wrist crease had wound lengths up to 5–7 cm. vs. the MIS techniques which had significant difference in surgical incision length. The much smaller wound lengths with the MIS technique compared to those with the standard technique could result in less wound and/or scar pain leading to a shorter time to return to normal activities in the MIS group [15, 18, 24,25,26]. Differences in ethnicity and culture could also potentially affect pain sensitivity, pain perception and pain threshold in different populations [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43], therefore the anterior wrist pain at 2nd week after operation in our trial was quite low compared to the previous publications [18, 33]. Studies evaluating pain sensitivity, perception and thresholds in the Thai population and in populations of other ethnicities are still needed.

The result in term of time to return to work in our study was similar to the randomized controlled trials which compared MIS with double small incision technique (1-cm transverse proximal incision+ 1.5-cm distal incision) to endoscopic technique (double 1.0-cm incisions) for CTS release [24]. The time return to work in MIS with double small incision and endoscopic groups were 14 (SD 8) and 12 (SD 9) days, respectively without the statistical significance (P = 0.165). We realized that comparable results occurred because of both MIS with double small incision and endoscopic groups had the small difference of surgical incision length (small effect size) similar to our study. The different social security systems, with potential entitlement to paid sick leave in different countries might affect the time to return to work [44].

In this trial, no patients had their dressing changed prior to the 2nd week postoperatively and postoperative anterior wrist pain was evaluated prior to removal of the dressing to ensure that all patients remained blinded regarding the type of operation performed. No patients took the oral pain-control medication for more than 3 days after the operation, so the effect of oral pain-control medication did not affect the evaluation of postoperative anterior wrist pain at the 2nd week after surgical release. As both surgical techniques provided adequate visualization, no extended incision proximal to the wrist crease was performed with any of the patients.

The short incision technique provided satisfactory outcomes in terms of anterior wrist pain and time to return to daily activities and work and were comparable to the MIS with tool-kit technique. The short incision technique did not require any special instruments which offered the benefit in term of cost-effectiveness unlike the MIS technique which required special tools to perform the complete transverse carpal ligament release under direct visualization. However, the MIS with tool-kit technique had the advantage of creating a smaller wound length and thus a smaller scar, making it preferable for patients concerned about cosmetic appearance and who could afford the extra cost.

There are several limitations in this randomized controlled trial. First, the study only compared selected aspects between the MIS with tool-kit and the short incision approaches. Other aspects, e.g., satisfactory, grip or pinch strength, may have yielded different results. Second, the sample size was relatively small. Although the sample size of our study was adequate to interpret the primary outcomes, a prospective randomized controlled trial involving a larger population and a long-term follow-up is needed to confirm our results. Third, there is a limitation in terms of generalizability as this study included only Thais. Additional studies should be conducted in other populations. Fourth, after removal of the dressing, patients might have been able to discern the type of surgical technique they had received which could have biased the results for time to return to work and to activities of daily living. Fifth, since we used block of four in the method of randomization, the small block size could increase the risk that the allocation process might be predictable.

Conclusions

There are no differences in terms of early postoperative anterior wrist pain or in time to return to work or activities of daily living between the short incision and the MIS with tool-kit techniques in patients undergoing CTS release. Short incision is recommended for benefit in term of cost-effectiveness, while the MIS with tool-kit method results in less surgical wound length which could be important for patients concerned with cosmetic appearance.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

cm :

Centimeter

CONSORT:

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

CTS:

Carpal tunnel syndrome

MHQ:

Michigan hand questionnaire

MIS:

minimally invasive surgery

SD:

Standard deviation

VAS:

Visual analogue scale

WALANT:

wide-awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet

References

  1. Dawson DM. Entrapment neuropathies of the upper extremities. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(27):2013–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Katz JN, Keller RB, Fossel AH, Punnett L, Bessette L, Simmons BP, et al. Predictors of return to work following carpal tunnel release. Am J Ind Med. 1997;31(1):85–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Papanicolaou GD, McCabe SJ, Firrell J. The prevalence and characteristics of nerve compression symptoms in the general population. J Hand Surg Am. 2001;26(3):460–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Johnsson R, Ornstein E, Ranstam J, Rosen I. Prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome in a general population. JAMA. 1999;282(2):153–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Werner RA. Evaluation of work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(2):207–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Armstrong T, Dale AM, Franzblau A, Evanoff BA. Risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome and median neuropathy in a working population. J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50(12):1355–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Osorio AM, Ames RG, Jones J, Castorina J, Rempel D, Estrin W, et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome among grocery store workers. Am J Ind Med. 1994;25(2):229–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Shi Q, Bobos P, Lalone EA, Warren L, MacDermid JC. Comparison of the short-term and long-term effects of surgery and nonsurgical intervention in treating carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Hand (N Y). 2020;15(1):13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Calandruccio JH, Thompson NB. Carpal tunnel syndrome: making evidence-based treatment decisions. Orthop Clin North Am. 2018;49(2):223–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Verdugo RJ, Salinas RA, Castillo JL, Cea JG. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008(4):CD001552.

  11. Scholten RJ, Mink van der Molen A, Uitdehaag BM, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Surgical treatment options for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007(4):CD003905.

  12. Li Y, Luo W, Wu G, Cui S, Zhang Z, Gu X. Open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):272.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Vasiliadis HS, Georgoulas P, Shrier I, Salanti G, Scholten RJ. Endoscopic release for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014(1):CD008265.

  14. Vasiliadis HS, Nikolakopoulou A, Shrier I, Lunn MP, Brassington R, Scholten RJ, et al. Endoscopic and open release similarly safe for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. A systematic review and Meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10(12):e0143683.

  15. Li G, Kong L, Kou N, Wang Y, Yu K, Bai J, et al. The comparison of limited-incision versus standard-incision in treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(18):e15372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Taleisnik J. The palmar cutaneous branch of the median nerve and the approach to the carpal tunnel. An anatomical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55(6):1212–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Murthy PG, Goljan P, Mendez G, Jacoby SM, Shin EK, Osterman AL. Mini-open versus extended open release for severe carpal tunnel syndrome. Hand (N Y). 2015;10(1):34–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Larsen MB, Sorensen AI, Crone KL, Weis T, Boeckstyns ME. Carpal tunnel release: a randomized comparison of three surgical methods. J Hand Surg Eur. 2013;38(6):646–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Liawrungrueang W, Wongsiri S. Effectiveness of surgical treatment in carpal tunnel syndrome Mini-incision using MIS-CTS kits: a cadaveric study. Adv Orthop. 2020;2020:8278054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rowland EB, Kleinert JM. Endoscopic carpal-tunnel release in cadavera. An investigation of the results of twelve surgeons with this training model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76(2):266–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Yeo KQ, Yeo EM. Comparison of the results of open carpal tunnel release and KnifeLight carpal tunnel release. Singap Med J. 2007;48(12):1131–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gulsen I, Ak H, Evcili G, Balbaloglu O, Sosuncu E. A retrospective comparison of conventional versus transverse Mini-incision technique for carpal tunnel release. ISRN Neurol. 2013;2013:721830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Castillo TN, Yao J. Comparison of longitudinal open incision and two-incision techniques for carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(11):1813–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang X, Huang X, Wang X, Wen S, Sun J, Shao X. A randomized comparison of double small, standard, and endoscopic approaches for carpal tunnel release. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3):641–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tarallo M, Fino P, Sorvillo V, Parisi P, Scuderi N. Comparative analysis between minimal access versus traditional accesses in carpal tunnel syndrome: a perspective randomised study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(2):237–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Heidarian A, Abbasi H, Hasanzadeh Hoseinabadi M, Hajialibeyg A, Kalantar Motamedi SM, Seifirad S. Comparison of Knifelight surgery versus conventional open surgery in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2013;15(5):385–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Practice parameter for carpal tunnel syndrome (summary statement). Report of the quality standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of neurology. Neurology. 1993;43(11):2406–9.

  29. Sucher BM. Grading severity of carpal tunnel syndrome in electrodiagnostic reports: why grading is recommended. Muscle Nerve 2013;48(3):331–3.

  30. Romeo P, d'Agostino MC, Lazzerini A, Sansone VC. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy in pillar pain after carpal tunnel release: a preliminary study. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011;37(10):1603–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Reed MD, Van Nostran W. Assessing pain intensity with the visual analog scale: a plea for uniformity. J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;54(3):241–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Atthakomol P, Manosroi W, Sanguanrungsirikul S, Punoppamas S, Benjachaya S, Tongprasert S, et al. A Thai version of the Michigan hand questionnaire (Thai MHQ): an investigation of the psychometric properties. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Saw NL, Jones S, Shepstone L, Meyer M, Chapman PG, Logan AM. Early outcome and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release: a randomized prospective trial. J Hand Surg Br. 2003;28(5):444–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain. 2004;8(4):283–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim HJ, Yang GS, Greenspan JD, Downton KD, Griffith KA, Renn CL, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in experimental pain sensitivity: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2017;158(2):194–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rahim-Williams B, Riley JL 3rd, Williams AK, Fillingim RB. A quantitative review of ethnic group differences in experimental pain response: do biology, psychology, and culture matter? Pain Med. 2012;13(4):522–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Campbell CM, Edwards RR, Fillingim RB. Ethnic differences in responses to multiple experimental pain stimuli. Pain. 2005;113(1–2):20–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ahn H, Weaver M, Lyon DE, Kim J, Choi E, Staud R, et al. Differences in clinical pain and experimental pain sensitivity between Asian Americans and whites with knee osteoarthritis. Clin J Pain. 2017;33(2):174–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rhudy JL, Lannon EW, Kuhn BL, Palit S, Payne MF, Sturycz CA, et al. Assessing peripheral fibers, pain sensitivity, central sensitization, and descending inhibition in native Americans: main findings from the Oklahoma study of native American pain risk. Pain. 2020;161(2):388–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rowell LN, Mechlin B, Ji E, Addamo M, Girdler SS. Asians differ from non-Hispanic whites in experimental pain sensitivity. Eur J Pain. 2011;15(7):764–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mongkhonthawornchai S, Sangchart B, Sornboon A, Chantarasiri J. Thai perspectives on pain. J Med Assoc Thail. 2013;96(Suppl 4):S91–7.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kawasaki N, Eto K. Neuropsychiatry and delivery. Saishin Igaku. 1966;21(11):2426–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Costigan CL, Bardina P, Cauce AM, Kim GK, Latendresse SJ. Inter- and intra-group variability in perceptions of behavior among Asian Americans and European Americans. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2006;12(4):710–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Atroshi I, Larsson GU, Ornstein E, Hofer M, Johnsson R, Ranstam J. Outcomes of endoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome among employed patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2006;332(7556):1473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University. The authors are grateful to G. Lamar Robert, PhD and Chongchit Robert, PhD for reviewing the manuscript.

Funding

Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

    Pichitchai Atthakomol, Sitthikorn Kaensuk & Apiruk Sangsin

  2. Clinical Epidemiology and Clinical Statistic Center, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

    Pichitchai Atthakomol & Worapaka Manosroi

  3. Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

    Worapaka Manosroi

  4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

    Montana Buntragulpoontawee & Siam Tongprasert

Authors
  1. Pichitchai Atthakomol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sitthikorn Kaensuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Worapaka Manosroi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Apiruk Sangsin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Montana Buntragulpoontawee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Siam Tongprasert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PA initiated study conception and design. PA enrolled the patients. PA performed both short incision surgery and MIS with tool-kit surgery. MB and ST. performed the electro diagnosis for including the patients. SK performed data collection. (outcome assessor). PA and WM performed the data analysis. PA, WM and AS interpreted. the data. PA wrote the original draft of the manuscript. SK, WM, AS, MB and ST edited the manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pichitchai Atthakomol.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Ethics Committees in Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University.

approved this study. The committee’s reference number is ORT256206310. All participants.

gave written informed consent before data collection began. All procedures followed were in.

accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human.

experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as.

revised in 2008.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Tool-kits (MIS-CTS kits) for minimally invasive surgery were supported by SCG Chemicals Co Ltd.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Results after carpal tunnel surgery in each group.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atthakomol, P., Kaensuk, S., Manosroi, W. et al. Short incision versus minimally invasive surgery with tool-kit for carpal tunnel syndrome release: a prospective randomized control trial to evaluate the anterior wrist pain and time to return to work or activities. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23, 708 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05663-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05663-5

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us