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

Decompression of the carpal tunnel is a common surgical procedure. Although the incidence of the carpal tunnel syndrome increases with age, there is no clear information available on the outcome of surgery in relation to age. We studied prospectively 87 consecutive patients who underwent decompression, using a validated self-administered questionnaire, and found that improvement in symptoms and function decreased with increasing age. This was most marked in patients over the age of sixty years

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

To establish the value of median nerve compression with wrist flexion as a provocative test for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), we performed a prospective study of 64 patients (95 hands) with CTS confirmed by electrodiagnostic studies and 50 normal subjects (96 hands). We recorded results for the common provocative tests (Tinel’s percussion test, Phalen’s wrist flexion test and the carpal compression test) and the new test which combines wrist flexion with median nerve compression. Using a receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) technique, we found that the optimal cut-off time for the wrist-flexion and median-nerve compression test was 20 s, giving a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 99%. These results were significantly better than for Phalen’s wrist flexion test (61% and 83%, respectively) and for the sensitivity of Tinel’s test (74%). The positive predictive values of the wrist flexion and median-nerve compression test, which is more important clinically, were 99%, 95% and 81% at population prevalences of 50%, 20% and 5%, respectively. These were significantly better than those of the three other provocative tests at each prevalence. Electrodiagnostic studies have significant false-positive and false-negative rates in CTS, and therefore provocative tests remain important in its diagnosis. We have shown that wrist flexion combined with the median-nerve compression test at 20 s, is significantly better than the other methods, and may thus be clinically useful