Cargando…

Efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common peripheral nerve entrapment disease. Either surgical or conservative intervention for CTS patients is needed to choose. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus non...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ren, Yi-Ming, Wang, Xi-Shan, Wei, Zhi-Jian, Fan, Bao-You, Lin, Wei, Zhou, Xian-Hu, Feng, Shi-Qing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5059040/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27749538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004857
_version_ 1782459364135665664
author Ren, Yi-Ming
Wang, Xi-Shan
Wei, Zhi-Jian
Fan, Bao-You
Lin, Wei
Zhou, Xian-Hu
Feng, Shi-Qing
author_facet Ren, Yi-Ming
Wang, Xi-Shan
Wei, Zhi-Jian
Fan, Bao-You
Lin, Wei
Zhou, Xian-Hu
Feng, Shi-Qing
author_sort Ren, Yi-Ming
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common peripheral nerve entrapment disease. Either surgical or conservative intervention for CTS patients is needed to choose. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical intervention. METHODS: The eligible studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Google, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by 2 of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan5.3. Standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Thirteen studies including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from moderate to high. The difference of clinical efficacy was statistically significant between surgical and nonsurgical intervention, and nonsurgical treatment was more effective (OR = 2.35, 95%CI = 1.18–4.67, P = 0.01). Meanwhile, different results were discovered by subgroup analysis. The pooled results of function improvement, symptom improvement, neurophysiological parameters improvement, and cost of care at different follow-up times showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the 2 interventions. The difference of complications and side-effects was statistically significant and conservative treatment achieved better result than surgery (OR = 2.03, 95%CI = 1.28–3.22, P = 0.003). Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results. CONCLUSION: Both surgical and conservative interventions had benefits in CTS. Nonsurgical treatment was more effective and safety than surgical treatment, but there were no significant differences in function improvement, symptom improvement, neurophysiological parameters improvement, and cost of care. Nonsurgical treatment is recommended as the optical choice for CTS. If conservative treatment fails, surgical release can be taken.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5059040
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50590402016-11-01 Efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis Ren, Yi-Ming Wang, Xi-Shan Wei, Zhi-Jian Fan, Bao-You Lin, Wei Zhou, Xian-Hu Feng, Shi-Qing Medicine (Baltimore) 7100 BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common peripheral nerve entrapment disease. Either surgical or conservative intervention for CTS patients is needed to choose. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical intervention. METHODS: The eligible studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Google, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by 2 of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan5.3. Standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Thirteen studies including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from moderate to high. The difference of clinical efficacy was statistically significant between surgical and nonsurgical intervention, and nonsurgical treatment was more effective (OR = 2.35, 95%CI = 1.18–4.67, P = 0.01). Meanwhile, different results were discovered by subgroup analysis. The pooled results of function improvement, symptom improvement, neurophysiological parameters improvement, and cost of care at different follow-up times showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the 2 interventions. The difference of complications and side-effects was statistically significant and conservative treatment achieved better result than surgery (OR = 2.03, 95%CI = 1.28–3.22, P = 0.003). Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results. CONCLUSION: Both surgical and conservative interventions had benefits in CTS. Nonsurgical treatment was more effective and safety than surgical treatment, but there were no significant differences in function improvement, symptom improvement, neurophysiological parameters improvement, and cost of care. Nonsurgical treatment is recommended as the optical choice for CTS. If conservative treatment fails, surgical release can be taken. Wolters Kluwer Health 2016-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5059040/ /pubmed/27749538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004857 Text en Copyright © 2016 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
spellingShingle 7100
Ren, Yi-Ming
Wang, Xi-Shan
Wei, Zhi-Jian
Fan, Bao-You
Lin, Wei
Zhou, Xian-Hu
Feng, Shi-Qing
Efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic 7100
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5059040/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27749538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004857
work_keys_str_mv AT renyiming efficacysafetyandcostofsurgicalversusnonsurgicaltreatmentforcarpaltunnelsyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangxishan efficacysafetyandcostofsurgicalversusnonsurgicaltreatmentforcarpaltunnelsyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT weizhijian efficacysafetyandcostofsurgicalversusnonsurgicaltreatmentforcarpaltunnelsyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT fanbaoyou efficacysafetyandcostofsurgicalversusnonsurgicaltreatmentforcarpaltunnelsyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT linwei efficacysafetyandcostofsurgicalversusnonsurgicaltreatmentforcarpaltunnelsyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhouxianhu efficacysafetyandcostofsurgicalversusnonsurgicaltreatmentforcarpaltunnelsyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT fengshiqing efficacysafetyandcostofsurgicalversusnonsurgicaltreatmentforcarpaltunnelsyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis