Title of article :
Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes between Two Different Techniques of Carpal Tunnel Release: Classical Incision versus Minimal Incision
Author/Authors :
Heidari, Sajad Department of Orthopedics, School of Medicine - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Taabbodi, Alireza Department of Hand Surgery - Madani Hospital - School of Medicine - Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran , Farzan, Mahmoud Department of Orthopedics - Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex - School of Medicine - Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Saberi, Sadegh Department of Orthopedics - Joint Reconstruction Research Center - Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex - School of Medicine - Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , Ashrafi, Mitra Joint Reconstruction Research Center - Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex - Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Pages :
3
From page :
62
To page :
64
Abstract :
Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common compression neuropathy in the upper limb which needs surgery in many cases. Two common surgical incisions for carpal tunnel release (CTR) are classical incision and minimal incision. In this survey, the aim is to compare patient-reported outcomes of these two types of incisions. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with CTS who underwent two different approaches for CTR (classical or minimal) during one year were included. The diagnosis was confirmed clinically and by electrodiagnostic studies. The patients were categorized into two groups regarding the type of surgery. At the 12-month visit, the patients were assessed for functional outcome, level of the pain, and satisfaction with Quick Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder score (QuickDASH), the visual analogue score (VAS) scale, and the scar appearance and symptom relief, respectively. Results: 39 patients were entered in this study, 3 of who had bilateral symptoms. The 42 operated hands were divided into two groups: classical incision group (n = 21) and minimal incision group (n = 21). No significant difference was discovered between the two groups considering age and sex. In addition, no significant difference was found in the variables evaluated between the two groups, except for the higher patient satisfaction with the scar appearance in minimal incision group after 12 months. Conclusion: After a one-year period, the minimal incision procedure had no priority to classical incision procedure, except for higher patient satisfaction considering the scar appearance.
Keywords :
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome , Surgical Incisions , Scar , Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
Journal title :
Journal of Orthopedic and Spine Trauma
Serial Year :
2019
Record number :
2523342
Link To Document :
بازگشت