We report a new surgical technique of open carpal tunnel release with subneural reconstruction of the transverse carpal ligament and compare this with isolated open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release. Between December 2007 and October 2011, 213 patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (70 male, 143 female; mean age 45.6 years; 29 to 67) were recruited from three different centres and were randomly allocated to three groups: group A, open carpal tunnel release with subneural reconstruction of the transverse carpal ligament (n = 68); group B, isolated open carpal tunnel release (n = 92); and group C, endoscopic carpal tunnel release (n = 53). At a mean final follow-up of 24 months (22 to 26), we found no significant difference between the groups in terms of severity of symptoms or lateral grip strength. Compared with groups B and C, group A had significantly better functional status, cylindrical grip strength and pinch grip strength. There were significant differences in Michigan Hand Outcome scores between groups A and B, A and C, and B and C. Group A had the best functional status, cylindrical grip strength, pinch grip strength and Michigan Hand Outcome score. Subneural reconstruction of the transverse carpal ligament during carpal tunnel decompression maximises hand strength by stabilising the transverse carpal arch. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:221–8

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release has the advantage over open release of reduced tissue trauma and postoperative morbidity. Limited open carpal tunnel release has also been shown to have comparable results, but is easier to perform and is safer. We have compared the results of both techniques in a prospective, randomised trial. Thirty patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome had simultaneous bilateral release. The technique of release was randomly allocated to either two-portal endoscopic release (ECTR) or limited open release using the Strickland instrumentation (LOCTR). The results showed that the outcome was similar at follow-up of one year using both techniques. However, the LOCTR group had significantly less tenderness of the scar at the second and fourth postoperative week (p < 0.01). There was also less thenar and hypothenar (pillar) pain after LOCTR. Subjective evaluation showed a preference for LOCTR

The advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnelreleasearecontroversial. We have performed a prospective, randomised, blinded assessment in a district general hospital in order to determine if there was any demonstrable advantage in undertaking either technique. Twenty-five patients with confirmed bilateral idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome were randomised to undergo endoscopic release by the single portal Agee technique to one hand and open release to the other. Independent preoperative and postoperative assessment was undertaken by a hand therapist who was blinded to the type of treatment. Follow-up was for 12 months. The operating time was two minutes shorter for the open technique (p < 0.005). At all stages of postoperative assessment, the endoscopic technique had no significant advantages in terms of return of muscle strength and assessment of hand function, grip strength, manual dexterity or sensation. In comparison with open release, single-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release has a similar incidence of complications and a similar return of hand function, but is a slightly slower technique to undertake

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery.

Aims

Few studies have examined the long-term outcome of carpal tunnel release (CTR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported long-term outcome of CTR for electrophysiologically severe carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).