Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2017
Ultrasound-Guided Versus Landmark-Guided Local Corticosteroid Injection for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Babaei-Ghazani Arash, Roomizadeh Peyman, Forogh Bijan, Moeini-Taba Seyed-Mohammad, Abedini Amin, Kadkhodaie Mona, Jahanjoo Fateme, Eftekharsadat Bina
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature and assess the comparative effectiveness of ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided local corticosteroid injections in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).
DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science (from inception to February 1, 2017).
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided injection with landmark-guided injection in patients with CTS were included.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently screened abstracts and full texts. The outcomes of interest were Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) and Functional Status Scale (FSS) scores of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and 4 electrodiagnostic parameters, including compound muscle action potential (CMAP), sensory nerve action potential (SNAP), distal motor latency (DML), and distal sensory latency (DSL).
DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, 569 abstracts were retrieved and checked for eligibility; finally, 3 RCTs were included (181 injected hands). Pooled analysis showed that ultrasound-guided injection was more effective in SSS improvement (mean difference [MD], -.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], -.59 to -.32; P<.00001), whereas no significant difference was observed between the 2 methods in terms of the FSS (MD, -.25; 95% CI, -.56 to .05; P=.10). There were also no statistically significant differences in improvements of CMAP (MD, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.01 to 3.07; P=.05), SNAP (MD, -0.02; 95% CI, -6.27 to 6.23; P>.99), DML (MD, .05; 95% CI, -.30 to .39; P=.80), or DSL (MD, .00; 95% CI, -.65 to .65; P>.99).
CONCLUSIONS: This review suggested that ultrasound-guided injection was more effective than landmark-guided injection in symptom severity improvement in patients with CTS; however, no significant differences were observed in functional status or electrodiagnostic improvements between the 2 methods.
DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science (from inception to February 1, 2017).
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided injection with landmark-guided injection in patients with CTS were included.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently screened abstracts and full texts. The outcomes of interest were Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) and Functional Status Scale (FSS) scores of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and 4 electrodiagnostic parameters, including compound muscle action potential (CMAP), sensory nerve action potential (SNAP), distal motor latency (DML), and distal sensory latency (DSL).
DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, 569 abstracts were retrieved and checked for eligibility; finally, 3 RCTs were included (181 injected hands). Pooled analysis showed that ultrasound-guided injection was more effective in SSS improvement (mean difference [MD], -.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], -.59 to -.32; P<.00001), whereas no significant difference was observed between the 2 methods in terms of the FSS (MD, -.25; 95% CI, -.56 to .05; P=.10). There were also no statistically significant differences in improvements of CMAP (MD, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.01 to 3.07; P=.05), SNAP (MD, -0.02; 95% CI, -6.27 to 6.23; P>.99), DML (MD, .05; 95% CI, -.30 to .39; P=.80), or DSL (MD, .00; 95% CI, -.65 to .65; P>.99).
CONCLUSIONS: This review suggested that ultrasound-guided injection was more effective than landmark-guided injection in symptom severity improvement in patients with CTS; however, no significant differences were observed in functional status or electrodiagnostic improvements between the 2 methods.