Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is one of the most common compressive neuropathies and affects a large amount of individuals. We investigated the direct and indirect cost to society of operative versus nonoperative management of CTS. Methods: A Monte Carlo simulation model was used to estimate the lifetime direct and indirect costs associated with nonoperative and operative treatment of CTS, and its utility to patients. Results: Operative treatment of CTS had a lower total cost and a higher utility when compared with nonoperative treatment. Conclusions: CTS surgery is clearly a cost-effective treatment strategy that should be included in the societal perspective regarding evolving costs and savings associated with health care.
AtroshiIEnglundMTurkiewiczA, et al. Incidence of physician-diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome in the general population. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(10):943-944.
2.
AtroshiIGummessonCJohnssonR, et al. Prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome in a general population. JAMA. 1999;282(2):153-158.
3.
DaleAMHarris-AdamsonCRempelD, et al. Prevalence and incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome in US working populations: pooled analysis of six prospective studies. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2013;39(5):495-505.
4.
FajardoMKimSHSzaboRM.Incidence of carpal tunnel release: trends and implications within the United States ambulatory care setting. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37(8):1599-1605.
5.
FoleyMSilversteinBPolissarN.The economic burden of carpal tunnel syndrome: long-term earnings of CTS claimants in Washington State. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50(3):155-172.
6.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work, 2015. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor; 2015. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh2.pdf. Accessed October 22, 2018.
7.
ThomaAWongWHSpragueS, et al. A cost-utility analysis of open and endoscopic carpal tunnel release. Can J Plast Surg. 2006;14(1):15-20.
8.
ChungKCWaltersMRGreenfieldML, et al. Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102:1089-1099.
9.
ParkKWBoyerMIGelbermanRH, et al. Simultaneous bilateral versus staged bilateral carpal tunnel release: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24:796-804.
10.
PomeranceJZurakowskiDI.The cost-effectiveness of nonsurgical versus surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg. 2009;34:1193-1200.
11.
MatherRCKoenigLAcevedoD, et al. The societal and economic value of rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1993-2000.
12.
GerritsenAAde KromMCStruijsMA, et al. Conservative treatment options for carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. J Neurol. 2002;249:272-280.
O’ConnorDMarshallSMassy-WestroppN.Non-surgical treatment (other than steroid injection) for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD003219.
15.
Korthals-de BosIBGerritsenAAvan TulderMW, et al. Surgery is more cost-effective than splinting for carpal tunnel syndrome in the Netherlands: results of an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:86.
16.
RenY-MWangX-SWeiZ-J.Efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2016;95(40):e4857.
17.
RuizDJrKoenigLDallTM, et al. The direct and indirect costs to society of treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1473-1480.
18.
ElfarJCFoadMBFoadSL, et al. A cost analysis of staged and simultaneous bilateral carpal tunnel release. Hand. 2012;7(3):327-332.
