Effectiveness of mini-transverse incision versus traditional reduced technique in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. A prospective cohort study()

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome has attracted attention as an occupational disease due to the dramatic increase on its magnitude, and its prevalence in the general population, who's has been reported from a 0.6 to 3.4%. Currently, there are various techniques for its approach. However, there is great controversy when it comes to establishing which of the methods is the most beneficial. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of the mini-transverse incision against the traditional longitudinal technique in treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A series of cases is presented, prospectively included, of patients with a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome, who are beneficiaries of a government hospital. We present a series of cases with a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome, which were performed with two different techniques. Both techniques were evaluated by comparing the recovery and work reintegration times, as well as the decrease in pain and the absence of complications. RESULTS: A total of 8 patients operated with a minimal incision and 9 with a traditional reduced incision were studied. Significant differences were shown in the days taken to return to work, with a median of 17.5 (q25-q75 14–21) days for mini-transverse incision group and of 28 (q25-q75 21–28) days for the longitudinal traditional incision group (p = 0.002). Likewise, differences were obtained in the visual analogue pain scale during the first week of evaluation 4 vs 7 (p = 0.000), in contrast to complications where there were no differences at all. CONCLUSION: The results obtained corroborate a greater efficacy of the mini-transverse incision technique, in reducing disability times. This favors the health institution to reduce the costs of rehabilitation and for the patient to have a prompt work reintegration. It is suggested to strengthen the scientific evidence that supports the use of this technique by exploring other areas such as functional status or long-term benefits.