4.4 Article

Carpal and Cubital Tunnel and Other, Rarer Nerve Compression Syndromes

期刊

DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL
卷 112, 期 1-2, 页码 -

出版社

DEUTSCHER AERZTE-VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0014

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome is by far the most common peripheral nerve compression syndrome, affecting approximately one in every six adults to a greater or lesser extent. Splitting the flexor retinaculum to treat carpal tunnel syndrome is the second most common specialized surgical procedure in Germany. Cubital tunnel syndrome is rarer by a factor of 13, and the other compression syndromes are rarer still. Methods: This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library, along with current guidelines and the authors' clinical and scientific experience. Results: Randomized controlled trials have shown, with a high level of evidence, that the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome yields very good results regardless of the particular technique used, as long as the diagnosis and the indication for surgery are well established by the electrophysiologic and radiological findings and the operation is properly performed. The success rates of open surgery, and the single-portal and dual-portal endoscopic methods are 91.6%, 93.4% and 92.5%, respectively. When performed by experienced hands, all these procedures have complication rates below 1%. The surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome has a comparably low complication rate, but worse results overall. Neuro-ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging (neuro-MRI) are increasingly being used to complement the diagnostic findings of electrophysiologic studies. Conclusion: Evidence-based diagnostic methods and treatment recommendations are now available for the two most common peripheral nerve compression syndromes. Further controlled trials are needed for most of the rarer syndromes, especially the controversial ones.

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

4.4
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