3.8 Review

Update on surgical procedures for carpal tunnel syndrome: What is the current evidence and practice? What are the future research directions?

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF ORTHOPEDICS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 6-12

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v14.i1.6

关键词

Carpal tunnel; Carpal tunnel release; Transverse ligament; Endoscopic release; Open release

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article reviews the progress and innovation in surgical treatments for CTS, suggesting that surgeons should prioritize better neurovascular structures visualization over early reduction of immobilization and pain. The researchers also call for further efforts to establish a universally accepted standardization.
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a multifactorial compression neuropathy. It is reported to be very common and rising globally. CTS's treatment varies from conservative measures to surgical treatments. Surgery has shown to be an effective method for more severe cases. However few unclear aspects and room for further research and improvements still remains. We performed a narrative literature review on the most up to date progress and innovation in terms of surgical treatments for CTS. The simple algorithm of leaving the choice of the surgical method to surgeons' preference and experience (together with consideration of patients' related factors) seem to be the best available option, which is supported by the most recent metanalysis and systematic reviews. We suggest that surgeons (unless in presence of precise indications towards endoscopic release) should tend to perform a minimally invasive open approach release, favoring the advantage of a better neurovascular structures visualization (and a consequent higher chance to perform a complete release with long term relief of symptoms) instead of favoring an early reduction (in the first postoperative days) of immobilization and pain. Research towards a universally accepted standardization should be aimed for by the researchers, who have failed to date to sufficiently limit bias and limitations.

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

3.8
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