Comparison of Wrist Arthroscopy, Small Incision Surgery, and Conventional Surgery for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Retrospective Study at a Single Center

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of wrist arthroscopy, small incision surgery, and conventional open carpal tunnel release surgery for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. MATERIAL/METHODS: Patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (n=111) were treated with wrist arthroscopy (n=33), small incision surgery (n=40), and conventional open carpal tunnel release surgery (n=38). Incision length, duration of surgery, degree of intraoperative bleeding, recovery time, and findings at postoperative follow-up at one month, three months, and six months after surgery were recorded. Assessment included the two-point discrimination test, the grip and pinch strength test, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, the Levine questionnaire, and Kelly’s therapeutic evaluation. RESULTS: Incision length, duration of surgery, intraoperative bleeding, and recovery time were significantly reduced in the wrist arthroscopy group and the small incision surgery group compared with the conventional surgery group (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in the two-point discrimination or grip and pinch strength test (p>0.05). Postoperatively, at one month, the VAS score, Levine score, and Kelly’s therapeutic evaluation in the wrist arthroscopy group and the small incision surgery group were significantly lower compared with the conventional surgery group (p<0.05). Scar length and scar tenderness in the conventional surgery group were significantly increased compared with the wrist arthroscopy group and the small incision surgery group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Wrist arthroscopy, small incision surgery, and conventional open carpal tunnel release surgery were effective for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome, but conventional surgery resulted in more postoperative complications.