RESEARCH ARTICLE
Outcomes and Satisfaction with Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Releases and the Predictors - A Retrospective Cohort Study
Alvin Chao-Yu Chen1, *, Meng-Huang Wu2, Chun-Ying Cheng1, Yi-Sheng Chan1
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2016Volume: 10
First Page: 757
Last Page: 764
Publisher ID: TOORTHJ-10-757
DOI: 10.2174/1874325001610010757
Article History:
Received Date: 13/10/2016Revision Received Date: 29/10/2016
Acceptance Date: 23/11/2016
Electronic publication date: 30/12/2016
Collection year: 2016
open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
Abstract
Background:
Patient’s final satisfaction with endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) is still unpredictable. The study aims to find the predictive factors for satisfaction in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) treated by ECTR using the Boston CTS questionnaire.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective chart review of 37 patients (55 hands) who received ECTR and completed Boston carpal tunnel questionnaire at preoperative visit, 1 month and 6 months after operation while a telephone interview was conducted at 2 years after operation. Independent risk variables, including mean symptom severity scale, functional status scale, each item in questionnaire at all the time points, ASA physical status scale, age, gender, dominant site lesion, bilateral lesions, duration of symptoms and anesthesia method were recorded. Final outcome was determined by the patient’s satisfaction at the interval of 2 years. Predictors to outcome were analyzed by stepwise multiple regression analysis and tested with Pearson correlation test. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results:
The severity of hand or wrist numbness during the daytime (Q6, explained 6.5% variances), the severity of numbness or tingling at night (Q9, explained 16.2% variances), the functional status of writing (q1, explained 13.9% variances), carrying grocery bags (q7, explained 13.6% variances) had significant predictive value (p<0.001). Other factors were not significant in the analysis including ASA, gender, age, dominant site lesion, bilateral lesions, anesthesia method and duration of symptoms.
Conclusions:
Boston questionnaire is a simple and reliable tool with high predictive values to evaluate patient’s outcome and satisfaction in ECTR.
