Diabetes mellitus is recognised as a risk factor
for carpal tunnel syndrome. The response to treatment is unclear,
and may be poorer than in non-diabetic patients. Previous randomised
studies of interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome have specifically
excluded diabetic patients. The aim of this study was to investigate
the epidemiology of carpal tunnel syndrome in diabetic patients,
and compare the outcome of carpal tunnel decompression with non-diabetic
patients. The primary endpoint was improvement in the QuickDASH
score. The prevalence of diabetes mellitus was 11.3% (176 of 1564).
Diabetic patients were more likely to have severe neurophysiological
findings at presentation. Patients with diabetes had poorer QuickDASH
scores at one year post-operatively (p = 0.028), although the mean
difference was lower than the minimal clinically important difference
for this score. After controlling for underlying differences in
age and gender, there was no difference between groups in the magnitude of
improvement after decompression (p = 0.481). Patients with diabetes
mellitus can therefore be expected to enjoy a similar improvement
in function.
The purpose of this study was to compare the
outcome and complications of endoscopic We conclude that endoscopic release for de Quervain’s tenosynovitis
seems to provide earlier improvement after surgery, with fewer superficial
radial nerve complications and greater scar satisfaction, when compared
with open release. Cite this article:
We have developed an illustrated questionnaire, the Hand20, comprising 20 short and easy-to-understand questions to assess disorders of the upper limb. We have examined the usefulness of this questionnaire by comparing reliability, validity, responsiveness and the level of missing data with those of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. A series of 431 patients with disorders of the upper limb completed the Hand20 and the Japanese version of the DASH (DASH-JSSH) questionnaire. The norms for Hand20 scores were determined in another cross-sectional study. Most patients had no difficulty in completing the Hand20 questionnaire, whereas the DASH-JSSH had a significantly higher rate of missing data. The standard score for the Hand20 was smaller than the reported norms for the DASH. Our study showed that the Hand20 questionnaire provided validation comparable with that of the DASH-JSSH. Explanatory illustrations and short questions which were easy-to-understand led to better rates of response and fewer missing data, even in elderly individuals with cognitive deterioration.