Results of surgical treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome depending on the severity of the disease
https://doi.org/10.18019/1028-4427-2021-27-1-24-31
Abstract
Introduction. Although surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is known to be highly effective outcomes may not be equally satisfactory for the patients due to severity of clinical presentation and objectifying assessment of the condition.
Purpose. Provide clinical evaluation of outcomes of surgical treatment of CTS using questionnaires and electroneuromyography (ENMG) findings depending on baseline severity of the condition.
Material and methods. The review included 161 patients who underwent 189 operations of open decompression of the median nerve using mini-access. The patients were assigned to three groups with mild (Group I), moderate (Group II) and severe (Group III) CTS. Evaluations were produced at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months following the surgery.
Results. The majority of patients showed positive dynamics, and delayed recovery of the wrist function was noted in Group III at a 12-month follow-up. Patients of Group III exhibited spasmodic improvement of the wrist function at 6-week-to-3-month follow-up.
Conclusion. Open decompression of the median nerve performed for patients with CTS using mini-approach facilitated substantial clinical and functional improvement in most cases. However, the most favorable results could be provided for mild and moderate CTS.
About the Authors
O. M. Semenkin
V.D. Seredavin Samara Regional Clinical Hospital;
Samara State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Oleg M. Semenkin, M.D., Ph.D.,
Samara
S. N. Izmalkov
Samara State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergey N. Izmalkov, M.D., Ph.D.,
Samara
A. N. Bratiichuk
Samara State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander N. Bratiichuk, M.D., Ph.D.,
Samara
E. B. Solopikhina
V.D. Seredavin Samara Regional Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elya B. Solopikhina, M.D.,
Samara
S. V. Balakleets
V.D. Seredavin Samara Regional Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Svetlana V. Balakleets, M.D.,
Samara
M. A. Bogdanova
V.D. Seredavin Samara Regional Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Maria A. Bogdanova, M.D.,
Samara
N. A. Kniazev
Samara State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikita A. Kniazev, M.D.,
Samara
References
1. Novikov A.V., Shchedrina M.A., Motiakina O.P. Sovremennye predstavleniia ob etiologii i mekhanizmakh patogeneza kompressionnoishemicheskikh nevropatii verkhnei konechnosti (obzor literatury) [Modern ideas about the etiology and pathogenesis mechanisms of compression-ischemic neuropathies of the upper limb (review of the literature)]. Voprosy Travmatologii i Ortopedii, 2012, no. 3, pp. 35-39. (in Russian)
2. Bogov A.A. Jr., Masgutov R.F., Khannanova I.G., Galiamov A.R., Mullin R.I., Topyrkin V.G., Akhtyamov I.F., Bogov A.A. Sindrom zapiastnogo (karpalnogo) kanala [Carpal tunnel syndrome]. Prakticheskaia Meditsina, 2014, no. 4-2: Innovatsionnye Tekhnologii v Meditsine [Innovation Technologies in Medicine], pp. 35-40. (in Russian)
3. Hageman M.G., Kinaci A., Ju K., Guitton T.G., Mudgal C.S., Ring D. Science of Variation Group. Carpal tunnel syndrome: Assessment of surgeon and patient preferences and priorities for decision-making. J. Hand Surg. Am., 2014, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 1799- 1804.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.05.035
4. Cha S.M., Shin H.D., Ahn J.S., Beom J.W., Kim D.Y. Differences in the postoperative outcomes according to the primary treatment options chosen by patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: conservative versus operative treatment. Ann. Plast. Surg., 2016, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 80-84. DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000598
5. Wright A.R., Atkinson R.E. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: An Update for the Primary Care Physician. Hawaii J. Health Soc. Welf., 2019, vol. 78, no. 11 Suppl. 2, pp. 6-10.
6. Bland J.D. Treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve, 2007, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 167-171. [PMID: 17534984]. DOI: 10.1002/mus.20802
7. Verdugo R.J., Salinas R.A., Castillo J.L., Cea J.G. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2008, vol. 2008, no. 4, pp. CD001552. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001552.pub2
8. Jarvik J.G., Comstock B.A., Kliot M., Turner J.A., Chan L., Heagerty P.J., Hollingworth W., Kerrigan C.L., Deyo R.A. Surgery versus non-surgical therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized parallel-group trial. Lancet, 2009, vol. 374, no. 9695, pp. 1074-1081. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61517-8
9. Kwon B.C., Jung K.I., Baek G.H. Comparison of sonography and electrodiagnostic testing in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. J. Hand Surg. Am., 2008, vol. 33, no. 1, pp.65-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.10.014
10. Kaymak B., Ozçakar L., Cetin A., Candan Cetin M., Akinci A., Hasçelik Z. A comparison of the benefits of sonography and electrophysiologic measurements as predictors of symptom severity and functional status in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 2008, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 743-748. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.09.041
11. Iida J., Hirabayashi H., Nakase H., Sakaki T. Carpal tunnel syndrome: electrophysiological grading and surgical results by minimum incision open carpal tunnel release. Neurol. Med. Chir. (Tokyo), 2008, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 554-559. DOI: 10.2176/nmc.48.554
12. Beck J.D., Wingert N.C., Rutter M.R., Irgit K.S., Tang X., Klena J.C. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic carpal tunnel release in patients 65 and over. J. Hand Surg. Am., 2013, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1524-1529. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.05.016
13. Żyluk A., Walaszek I., Szlosser Z. No correlation between sonographic and electrophysiological parameters in carpal tunnel syndrome. J. Hand Surg. Eur. Vol., 2014, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 161-166. DOI: 10.1177/1753193413489046
14. Kanatani T., Nagura I., Harada Y., Sumi M. The role of electrophysiological severity scales for decision-making with regard to surgery in idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome. Kobe J. Med. Sci., 2017, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. E68-E72.
15. Ginniatulina R.I. Mezhdunarodnye podkhody k upravleniiu kachestvom meditsinskoi pomoshchi (obzor literatury) [International approaches to the management of medical care quality (review of the literature]. Nauka i Innovatsii v Meditsine, 2019, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 38-43. (in Russian)
16. Iusupova D.G., Suponeva N.A., Zimin A.A., Zaitsev A.B., Belova N.V., Chechetkin A.O., Gushcha A.O., Gatina G.A., Polekhina N.V., Bundkhun P., Ashrafov V.M. Validatsiia Bostonskogo Oprosnika po otsenke karpalnogo tunnelnogo sindroma (Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire) v Rossii [Validation of Boston questionnaire by the assessment of carpal tunnel syndrome (Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire) in Russia]. Nervno myshechnye Bolezni, 2018, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 38-45. (in Russian)
17. Levine D.W., Simmons B.P., Koris M.J., Daltroy L.H., Hohl G.G., Fossel A.H., Katz J.N. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J. Bone Joint Surg., 1993, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 1585-1592. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199311000-00002
18. Izmalkov S.N., Bratiychuk A.N., Usov A.K., Galeev F.Sh., Litvinov S.A. Prognozirovanie veroiatnosti revizionnogo endoprotezirovaniia tazobedrennogo sustava s zamenoi vertluzhnogo komponenta v zavisimosti ot vida ego tsementnoi fiksatsii [Prediction of the probability of revision hip arthroplasty with replacement of the acetabular component depending on the type of its cement fixation]. Genij Ortopedii, 2019, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 474-480. (in Russian)
19. Aslani H.R., Alizadeh K., Eajazi A., Karimi A., Karimi M.H., Zaferani Z., Hosseini Khameneh S.M. Comparison of carpal tunnel release with three different techniques. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg., 2012, vol. 114, no. 7, pp. 965-968. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2012.02.017
20. Louie D.L., Earp B.E., Collins J.E., Losina E., Katz J.N., Black E.M., Simmons B.P., Blazar P.E. Outcomes of open carpal tunnel release at a minimum of ten years. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 2013, vol. 95, no. 12, pp. 1067-1073. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00903
21. Larsen M.B., Sørensen A.I., Crone K.L., Weis T., Boeckstyns M.E. Carpal tunnel release: a randomized comparison of three surgical methods. J. Hand Surg. Eur. Vol., 2013, vol. 38 (E), no. 6, pp. 646-650. DOI: 10.1177/1753193412475247
22. Mondelli M., Reale F., Sicurelli F., Padua L. Relationship between the self-administered Boston Questionnaire and electrophysiological findings in follow-up of surgically treated carpal tunnel syndrome. J. Hand Surg. Br., 2000, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 128-134. DOI: 10.1054/jhsb.2000.0361
23. Kronlage S.C., Menendez M.E. The benefit of carpal tunnel release in patients with electrophysiologically moderate and severe disease. J. Hand Surg. Am., 2015, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 438-444.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.12.012
24. Pedersen K., Duez V., Stallenberg B., Mavroudakis N. Evolution of clinical, electrophysiological, and radiological aspects of the carpal tunnel syndrome before and after surgery. Acta Neurol. Belg., 2017, vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 903-908. DOI: 10.1007/s13760-017-0837-0
25. Fowler J.R., Munsch M., Huang Y., Hagberg W.C., Imbriglia J.E. Pre-operative electrodiagnostic testing predicts time to resolution of symptoms after carpal tunnel release. J. Hand Surg. Eur. Vol., 2016, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 137-142. DOI: 10.1177/1753193415576248
Review
For citations:
Semenkin O.M., Izmalkov S.N., Bratiichuk A.N., Solopikhina E.B., Balakleets S.V., Bogdanova M.A., Kniazev N.A. Results of surgical treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome depending on the severity of the disease. Genij Ortopedii. 2021;27(1):24-31. https://doi.org/10.18019/1028-4427-2021-27-1-24-31
Views:
168
Email this article 