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

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

A total of 57 patients, aged between 23 and 86 years, with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type 1 nine weeks after an isolated closed fracture of the distal radius, was randomised to receive either serial intravenous regional blockade (IVRB) with 15 mg of guanethidine in 30 ml of 0.5% prilocaine or serial IVRB with 30 ml of normal saline at weekly intervals until the tenderness in their fingers had resolved or they had received a maximum of four IVRBs. The analgesic efficacy was assessed at 24 hours, 48 hours and one week after each procedure by the dolorimetry ratio and verbal pain scores, and at intervals up to six months after the fracture. There was no significant difference in the number of IVRBs administered or in finger tenderness, stiffness or grip strength between the two groups. The guanethidine group experienced more pain in the affected hand (p = 0.025) and at six months had more vasomotor instability (p < 0.0001) compared with the control group. IVRB using guanethidine offers no significant analgesic advantage over a normal saline placebo block in the treatment of early CRPS type 1 of the hand after fracture of the distal radius. It does not improve the outcome of this condition and may delay the resolution of vasomotor instability when compared with the placebo