Final 1-Year Results of the TUTOR Randomized Trial Comparing Carpal Tunnel Release with Ultrasound Guidance to Mini-open Technique.

Background: Studies comparing carpal tunnel release with ultrasound guidance (CTR-US) to mini-open CTR (mOCTR) are limited. This randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of these techniques. Methods: In this multicenter randomized trial, patients were randomized (2:1) to unilateral CTR-US or mOCTR. Outcomes included Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) and Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS), numeric pain scale (0-10), EuroQoL-5 Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), scar outcomes, and complications over 1 year. Results: Patients received CTR-US (n = 94) via wrist incision (mean 6 mm) or mOCTR (n = 28) via palmar incision (mean 22 mm). Comparing CTR-US with mOCTR, the mean changes in BCTQ-SSS (-1.8 versus -1.8; P = 0.96), BCTQ-FSS (-1.0 versus -1.0; P = 0.75), numeric pain scale (-3.9 versus -3.8; P = 0.74), and EQ-5D-5L (0.13 versus 0.12; P = 0.79) over 1 year were comparable between groups. Freedom from scar sensitivity or pain favored CTR-US (95% versus 74%; P = 0.005). Complications occurred in 2.1% versus 3.6% of patients (P = 0.55), all within 3 weeks postprocedure. There was one revision surgery in the CTR-US group, and no revisions for persistent or recurrent symptoms in either group. Conclusions: CTR-US and mOCTR demonstrated similar improvement in carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms and quality of life with comparable low complication rates over 1 year of follow-up. CTR-US was performed with a smaller incision and associated with less scar discomfort.

Multicenter randomized trial of carpal tunnel release with ultrasound guidance versus mini-open technique.

BACKGROUND: Comparative studies of carpal tunnel release with ultrasound guidance (CTR-US) vs. mini-open CTR (mOCTR) are limited, prompting development of this randomized trial to compare efficacy and safety of these techniques. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to CTR-US or mOCTR, treated by experienced hand surgeons (median previous cases: 12 CTR-US; 1000 mOCTR), and followed for 3 months. RESULTS: Among 149 randomized patients, 122 received CTR-US (n = 94) or mOCTR (n = 28). Mean incision length was 6 ± 2 mm in the wrist (CTR-US) vs. 22 ± 7 mm in the palm (mOCTR) (p < 0.001). Median time to return to daily activities (2 vs. 2 days; p = 0.81) and work (3 vs. 4 days; p = 0.61) were similar. Both groups reported statistically significant and clinically important improvements in Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity and Functional Status Scales, Numeric Pain Scale, and EuroQoL-5 Dimension 5-Level, with no statistical differences between groups. Freedom from wound sensitivity and pain favored CTR-US (61.1% vs. 17.9%; p < 0.001). Adverse event rates were low in each group (2.1% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of CTR-US were comparable to mOCTR despite less previous surgical experience with CTR-US. The choice of CTR technique should be determined by shared decision-making between patient and physician. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT05405218.

Trial of ultrasound guided carpal tunnel release versus traditional open release (TUTOR).

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is a surgical treatment option for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) symptoms that are unresponsive to conservative treatment. Most patients experience symptomatic relief after CTR regardless of the surgical technique. However, direct comparisons of the safety and effectiveness between CTR surgical techniques are limited. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the safety and effectiveness of CTR with ultrasound guidance (CTR-US) versus mini-open CTR (mOCTR) in subjects with symptomatic CTS. DESIGN AND METHODS: TUTOR (Trial of Ultrasound guided CTR versus Traditional Open Release) is a randomized controlled trial in which 120 subjects at up to 12 sites in the United States will be randomized (2:1) to receive CTR-US or mOCTR. The primary endpoint of the study is the percentage of patients who return to normal daily activities within 3 days of the procedure. Secondary endpoints of the study are median time to return to normal daily activities, percentage of patients who return to work within 3 days of the procedure, median time to return to work, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) change score at 3 months, BCTQ Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS) change score at 3 months, Numeric Pain Scale change score at 3 months, EuroQoL-5 Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) change score at 3 months, and the incidence of device- or procedure-related adverse events at 3 months. Patient follow-up in this trial will continue for 1 year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by a central institutional review board and ongoing trial oversight will be provided by a data safety monitoring board (DSMB). The authors intend to report the results of this trial at medical conferences and peer-reviewed journals. The outcomes of TUTOR will have important clinical and economic implications for all stakeholders involved in treating patients with CTS. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT05405218. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

An official American Thoracic Society workshop report: assessment and palliative management of dyspnea crisis.

In 2009, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) funded an assembly project, Palliative Management of Dyspnea Crisis, to focus on identification, management, and optimal resource utilization for effective palliation of acute episodes of dyspnea. We conducted a comprehensive search of the medical literature and evaluated available evidence from systematic evidence-based reviews (SEBRs) using a modified AMSTAR approach and then summarized the palliative management knowledge base for participants to use in discourse at a 2009 ATS workshop. We used an informal consensus process to develop a working definition of this novel entity and established an Ad Hoc Committee on Palliative Management of Dyspnea Crisis to further develop an official ATS document on the topic. The Ad Hoc Committee members defined dyspnea crisis as "sustained and severe resting breathing discomfort that occurs in patients with advanced, often life-limiting illness and overwhelms the patient and caregivers' ability to achieve symptom relief." Dyspnea crisis can occur suddenly and is characteristically without a reversible etiology. The workshop participants focused on dyspnea crisis management for patients in whom the goals of care are focused on palliation and for whom endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation are not consistent with articulated preferences. However, approaches to dyspnea crisis may also be appropriate for patients electing life-sustaining treatment. The Ad Hoc Committee developed a Workshop Report concerning assessment of dyspnea crisis; ethical and professional considerations; efficient utilization, communication, and care coordination; clinical management of dyspnea crisis; development of patient education and provider aid products; and enhancing implementation with audit and quality improvement.