The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome and complications of endoscopic versus open release for the treatment of de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. Patients with this condition were randomised to undergo either endoscopic (n = 27) or open release (n = 25). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores were measured at 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. Scar satisfaction was measured using a VAS scale. The mean pain and DASH scores improved significantly at 12 weeks and 24 weeks (p <  0.001) in both groups. The scores were marginally lower in the endoscopic group compared to the open group at 12 weeks (p = 0.012 and p = 0.002, respectively); however, only the DASH score showed a clinically important difference. There were no differences between the groups at 24 weeks. The mean VAS scar satisfaction score was higher in the endoscopic group at 24 weeks (p < 0.001). Transient superficial radial nerve injury occurred in three patients in the endoscopic group compared with nine in the open release group (p = 0.033). We conclude that endoscopic release for de Quervain’s tenosynovitis seems to provide earlier improvement after surgery, with fewer superficial radial nerve complications and greater scar satisfaction, when compared with open release. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:947–51

Endoscopic carpal tunnel release has the advantage over open release of reduced tissue trauma and postoperative morbidity. Limited open carpal tunnel release has also been shown to have comparable results, but is easier to perform and is safer. We have compared the results of both techniques in a prospective, randomised trial. Thirty patients with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome had simultaneous bilateral release. The technique of release was randomly allocated to either two-portal endoscopic release (ECTR) or limited open release using the Strickland instrumentation (LOCTR). The results showed that the outcome was similar at follow-up of one year using both techniques. However, the LOCTR group had significantly less tenderness of the scar at the second and fourth postoperative week (p < 0.01). There was also less thenar and hypothenar (pillar) pain after LOCTR. Subjective evaluation showed a preference for LOCTR

The advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnelreleasearecontroversial. We have performed a prospective, randomised, blinded assessment in a district general hospital in order to determine if there was any demonstrable advantage in undertaking either technique. Twenty-five patients with confirmed bilateral idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome were randomised to undergo endoscopic release by the single portal Agee technique to one hand and open release to the other. Independent preoperative and postoperative assessment was undertaken by a hand therapist who was blinded to the type of treatment. Follow-up was for 12 months. The operating time was two minutes shorter for the open technique (p < 0.005). At all stages of postoperative assessment, the endoscopic technique had no significant advantages in terms of return of muscle strength and assessment of hand function, grip strength, manual dexterity or sensation. In comparison with open release, single-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel release has a similar incidence of complications and a similar return of hand function, but is a slightly slower technique to undertake

We report a new surgical technique of open carpal tunnel release with subneural reconstruction of the transverse carpal ligament and compare this with isolated open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release. Between December 2007 and October 2011, 213 patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (70 male, 143 female; mean age 45.6 years; 29 to 67) were recruited from three different centres and were randomly allocated to three groups: group A, open carpal tunnel release with subneural reconstruction of the transverse carpal ligament (n = 68); group B, isolated open carpal tunnel release (n = 92); and group C, endoscopic carpal tunnel release (n = 53). At a mean final follow-up of 24 months (22 to 26), we found no significant difference between the groups in terms of severity of symptoms or lateral grip strength. Compared with groups B and C, group A had significantly better functional status, cylindrical grip strength and pinch grip strength. There were significant differences in Michigan Hand Outcome scores between groups A and B, A and C, and B and C. Group A had the best functional status, cylindrical grip strength, pinch grip strength and Michigan Hand Outcome score. Subneural reconstruction of the transverse carpal ligament during carpal tunnel decompression maximises hand strength by stabilising the transverse carpal arch. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:221–8

Deep gluteal syndrome is an increasingly recognized disease entity, caused by compression of the sciatic or pudendal nerve due to non-discogenic pelvic lesions. It includes the piriformis syndrome, the gemelli-obturator internus syndrome, the ischiofemoral impingement syndrome, and the proximal hamstring syndrome. The concept of the deep gluteal syndrome extends our understanding of posterior hip pain due to nerve entrapment beyond the traditional model of the piriformis syndrome. Nevertheless, there has been terminological confusion and the deep gluteal syndrome has often been undiagnosed or mistaken for other conditions. Careful history-taking, a physical examination including provocation tests, an electrodiagnostic study, and imaging are necessary for an accurate diagnosis.

After excluding spinal lesions, MRI scans of the pelvis are helpful in diagnosing deep gluteal syndrome and identifying pathological conditions entrapping the nerves. It can be conservatively treated with multidisciplinary treatment including rest, the avoidance of provoking activities, medication, injections, and physiotherapy.

Endoscopic or open surgical decompression is recommended in patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms after conservative treatment or in those who may have masses compressing the sciatic nerve.

Many physicians remain unfamiliar with this syndrome and there is a lack of relevant literature. This comprehensive review aims to provide the latest information about the epidemiology, aetiology, pathology, clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):556–567.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery.