This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wong, K. C. Articles by Wong, J. M. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wong, K. C. Articles by Wong, J. M. W.

Carpal tunnel release

A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMISED STUDY OF ENDOSCOPIC VERSUS LIMITED-OPEN METHODS

Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

J. M. W. Wong, ROT (HK)

Department of Occupational Therapy, Prince of Wales Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, SAR, China.

Correspondence should be sent to Professor L. K. Hung.

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.