Patients With and Without Double Crush Syndrome Achieve Similar Rates of Clinical Improvement Following Carpal Tunnel Release.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of carpal tunnel release (CTR) in patients with and without double crush syndrome (DCS), defined as concurrent carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and cervical radiculopathy at C5-T1 on preoperative nerve conduction studies. METHODS: Patients with preoperative nerve conduction studies who underwent unilateral, isolated CTR were retrospectively identified. All patients completed preoperative and 3-month postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE) and pain interference (PI), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaires, and responded to the anchor question: "Since your treatment, how would you rate your overall function?" (much worse, worse, slightly worse, no change, slightly improved, improved, much improved). Preoperative, postoperative, and changes in scores for UE, PI, and QuickDASH were compared, as were the anchor question responses and rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Sixty-three patients with DCS and 115 patients with CTS only were included. At 3- to 4-month follow-up, absolute and change in UE, PI, and QuickDASH scores were not statistically different between patients with DCS and CTS. Rates of anchor question response and MCID achievement were comparable for patients with CTS only and DCS on each questionnaire. The MCID achievement ranged from 48.4% to 68.8% in the unmatched cohort and 48.4% to 60% in the matched group. CONCLUSIONS: At 3 to 4 months, patients with DCS experience similar patient-reported symptomatic and functional improvement, and achieve MCID of outcome measures at comparable rates to patients with CTS only. For patients with nerve compression at the carpal tunnel and cervical spine, CTR is a reasonable first step prior to proceeding with cervical spine decompression.

Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for AcrySof SN60WF versus Tecnis ZCB00 Intraocular Lenses.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of various intraocular lens power formulas for two monofocal hydrophobic foldable lenses, the AcrySof SN60WF and the Tecnis ZCB00. Methods: This retrospective study included 409 eyes from 409 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery (299 eyes with SN60WF and 110 eyes with ZCB00). Biometry was performed for all eyes with an IOLMaster 700. Predicted refraction from five different IOL power formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer-Q, Holladay 2, and SRK/T) was compared to postoperative refraction at one to three months for the following axial length strata: short eyes ( < 22.5 mm), medium eyes (22.5-25.5 mm), and long eyes ( > 25.5 mm). Results: In patients with medium eyes, there were no significant differences in the mean absolute error (MAE) and the percentage of eyes within ± 0.5 D (% ± 0.5 D) between both IOLs. In short eyes, although MAE was similar between both lenses, % ± 0.5 D was significantly higher for Barrett Universal II in ZCB00 than in SN60WF (P = 0.01) while Hoffer-Q and Holladay 2 performed equally for both lenses. In long eyes, ZCB00 had a higher MAE than SN60WF for Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Hoffer-Q. Additionally, in long eyes, the percentage of eyes within % ± 0.5 D was significantly higher for SN60WF than ZCB00 for all formulas (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Although there were no significant differences in the formula accuracy between these two lenses in medium eyes for all formulas and in short eyes for most formulas, the accuracy decreased significantly in long eyes for ZCB00 compared to SN60WF. The effect of IOL model on the postoperative outcomes should be further investigated.

Correlation of Glottic Gap and Voice Impairment in Presbyphonia.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to investigate the glottic gap area as a significant marker for the severity of presbyphonia as it relates to patient-reported outcome measures (Voice Handicap Index-10 [VHI-10]) and stroboscopic findings. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study conducted in an academic tertiary voice center. METHODS: Patients seen at a tertiary voice clinic who were diagnosed with presbyphonia without other organic laryngeal pathology from January 2014 to December 2017 were included. Clinical data and laryngeal videostroboscopy videos were collected. Still images at the point of vocal process approximation during adduction were captured, and the glottic gap area was measured using ImageJ. These were compared to a control cohort. Correlations were made using Wilcoxon rank sum test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were included. Inter-rater reliability of glottic area measurement was strong (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.73, P < .001). Compared to controls, presbyphonia patients had a larger glottic gap area (P < .001) and greater open-phase quotient on laryngeal videostroboscopy (P < .001). Larger glottic gap area did not correlate with patient-reported vocal function as measured by VHI-10 (P = .79) and did not correlate with presence of secondary muscle tension dysphonia (P = .99). In the presbyphonia cohort, the glottic gap area did not correlate with age (P = .29). CONCLUSIONS: Glottic gap area at the point of vocal process approximation during phonation can be reliably measured. Patients with presbyphonia have a larger glottic gap area and greater open-phase quotient on stroboscopy, but these do not correlate with patient-reported voice impairment or the presence of secondary muscle tension dysphonia (MTD). These data suggest that dysphonia severity in presbyphonia is not fully explained by a glottic gap or secondary MTD alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:1594-1598, 2021.