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.