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.

Clinical outcomes of arthrodesis and arthroplasty for the treatment of posttraumatic wrist arthritis.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes of wrist arthrodesis and total wrist arthroplasty in the treatment of pancarpal posttraumatic arthritis. We hypothesized that arthroplasty would demonstrate better clinical outcomes than wrist arthrodesis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 22 patients treated (15 arthrodeses and 7 arthroplasties) for pancarpal posttraumatic arthritis. We measured clinical outcomes with the visual analog pain scale; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire; the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation; and a study-specific questionnaire. Postoperative complications were recorded from chart review. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 68 months for arthrodesis and 56 months for arthroplasty. The mean visual analog scale pain score was 2 for each group. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 38 for the arthrodesis group and 29 for the arthroplasty group. The mean Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation was 73 for the arthrodesis group and 31 for the arthroplasty group. The results from the study-specific questionnaire revealed that the majority of patients in both groups were satisfied. Complication rates were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Total wrist arthroplasty as an alternative to arthrodesis for the treatment of pancarpal posttraumatic arthritis may offer improved functional outcomes. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.