4.7 Article

Does Recurrence of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) after Complete Division of the Transverse Ligament Really Exist?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10184208

关键词

carpal tunnel syndrome; revision surgery; peripheral nerve

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The results indicate that recurrent CTS after complete and sufficient division of the transverse ligament is highly unlikely, with good long-term outcomes seen in patients who underwent initial surgery in the department. The main cause of recurrence in patients operated on outside the department was incomplete division of the transverse carpal ligament.
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) after complete and sufficient division of the transverse ligament really exists. Another goal was to analyze the underlying reasons for recurrent CTS operated on in our department. Over an observation period of eleven years, 156 patients underwent surgical intervention due to CTS. The records of each patient were analyzed with respect to baseline data (age, gender, affected hand), as were clinical signs and symptoms pre- and postoperatively. To assess long-term results, standardized telephone interviews were performed using a structured questionnaire in which the patients were questioned about persisting symptoms, if any. Of the 156 patients, 128 underwent first surgical intervention due to CTS in our department. In long-term follow-up, two-thirds of these patients had no symptoms at all; one-third of the patients described mild persisting numbness. None of the patients experienced a recurrence of CTS. The 28 patients who received their first operation outside of our department were operated on for recurrent CTS. The cause of recurrence was incomplete division of the distal part of the transverse carpal ligament in all cases. The results suggest that recurrent CTS after complete and sufficient division of the transverse ligament is very unlikely.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据