Pain management · 2026
Thread carpal tunnel release vs. minimally invasive carpal tunnel release: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Ezenwanne Charles, Spicer Seth, Brancaccio Hanna, Goodwin Brandon, Rubin David, Carmichael Taylor, Zou Iris, Mukhopadhyay Sweta, Siu Gilbert
Аннотация
AIMS: The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare outcomes between ultrasound-guided thread carpal tunnel release (TCTR) and other minimally invasive surgerical techniques (MIS), for the treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
MATERIALS/METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series examining TCTR or MIS in adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CTS were examined. Included studies must have reported pain, sensation, or functionality scores.
RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Five studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 389 patients. Mean follow-up for functionality and symptom severity scores were 8 months and 3.25 months for pain outcomes. Both TCTR and MIS demonstrated significant improvements in all outcomes. While within-group analayese suggested greater statistical robust improvement for symptom severity in the TCTR group (p < 0.01, Hedge's G = -3.25 [-4.42, -2.08], I2 = 83.1%) compared to MIS group (p = 0.05, Hedge's G = -2.16 [-4.32, -0.00], I2 = 99.3%), subgroup analysis did not demonstrate significant differences between TCTR and MIS for any outcomes. TCTR demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes to other minimally invasive carpal tunnel release techniques, suggesting that TCTR represents a viable minimally invasive option to the surgical management of CTS.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42024598274.
MATERIALS/METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series examining TCTR or MIS in adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CTS were examined. Included studies must have reported pain, sensation, or functionality scores.
RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Five studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 389 patients. Mean follow-up for functionality and symptom severity scores were 8 months and 3.25 months for pain outcomes. Both TCTR and MIS demonstrated significant improvements in all outcomes. While within-group analayese suggested greater statistical robust improvement for symptom severity in the TCTR group (p < 0.01, Hedge's G = -3.25 [-4.42, -2.08], I2 = 83.1%) compared to MIS group (p = 0.05, Hedge's G = -2.16 [-4.32, -0.00], I2 = 99.3%), subgroup analysis did not demonstrate significant differences between TCTR and MIS for any outcomes. TCTR demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes to other minimally invasive carpal tunnel release techniques, suggesting that TCTR represents a viable minimally invasive option to the surgical management of CTS.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42024598274.