Background: Surgical carpal tunnel release is performed by either open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) or endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR). The purpose of this study was to assess differences in intraoperative and postoperative complications, trends, and costs between OCTR and ECTR. Methods: State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD) files for California, Florida, and New Jersey were queried for patients who underwent OCTR and ECTR between 2000 and 2014. Patient demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and cost were compared between OCTR and ECTR. The frequency of each procedure was used to formulate trends in OCTR and ECTR. Results: A total of 571 403 patients were included in this study. Sex was significantly different by a small percentage (OCTR = 64.8% female, ECTR = 65.4% female). A higher proportion of Hispanic patients underwent ECTR (P < .001). The patients who underwent OCTR had a greater comorbidity burden in terms of diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis (P < .001). None of the aforementioned complication rates were statistically significant between the 2 procedures. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release was significantly more costly by almost $2000. Open carpal tunnel release has remained stable over the years studied, whereas ECTR increased 3-fold. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate no significant differences between OCTR and ECTR regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications and patient outcomes. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release was found to be significantly more costly.
KleopaKA.In the clinic. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(5):ITC1.
2.
DevanaSKJensenARYamaguchiKT, et al. Trends and complications in open versus endoscopic carpal tunnel release in private payer and Medicare patient populations. Hand (N Y). 2018. doi:1558944717751196.
3.
ChenLDuanXHuangX, et al. Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel decompression. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134(4):585-593.
4.
ThomaAVeltriKHainesT, et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopic and open carpal tunnel decompression. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(5):1137-1146.
5.
FnaisNGomesTMahoneyJ, et al. Temporal trend of carpal tunnel release surgery: a population-based time series analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(5):e97499.
6.
MichelottiBRomanowskyDHauckRM.Prospective, randomized evaluation of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome: an interim analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73(suppl 2):S157-S160.
7.
ZuoDZhouZWangH, et al. Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release for idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10:12.
8.
AslaniHRAlizadehKEajaziA, et al. Comparison of carpal tunnel release with three different techniques. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2012;114(7):965-968.
9.
VasiliadisHSNikolakopoulouAShrierI, et al. Endoscopic and open release similarly safe for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12):e0143683.
10.
FosterBDSivasundaramLHeckmannN, et al. Surgical approach and anesthetic modality for carpal tunnel release: a nationwide database study with health care cost implications. Hand (N Y). 2017;12(2):162-167.
11.
HarnessNGInacioMCPfeilFF, et al. Rate of infection after carpal tunnel release surgery and effect of antibiotic prophylaxis. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(2):189-196.
12.
LorgellyPKDiasJJBradleyMJ, et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome, the search for a cost-effective surgical intervention: a randomised controlled trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005;87(1):36-40.
13.
GrauerJNLeopoldSS.Editorial: large database studies—what they can do, what they cannot do, and which ones we will publish. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(5):1537-1539.
