A Cost-Utility Analysis of Open and Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) is the standard procedure for the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. With the advent of minimally invasive surgery, endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) was introduced. OBJECTIVE: To use a decision analytical model to compare ECTR with OCTR in an economic evaluation. METHODS: Direct medical costs were obtained from a Canadian university hospital. Utility values obtained from experts, presented with carpal tunnel syndrome outcome health states, were transformed into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The probabilities of the health states associated with both techniques were obtained from the literature. RESULTS: The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $124,311.32/QALY gained, providing strong evidence to reject ECTR when ECTR is performed in the main operating room and OCTR is performed in the day surgery unit. A one-way sensitivity analysis in the present study demonstrated that when both OCTR and ECTR are performed in day surgery unit, the ICUR falls in the 'win-win' quadrant, making ECTR both more effective and less costly than OCTR. If the scar tenderness probability is decreased in the ECTR group in a second one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICUR decreases to $100,621.91/QALY gained, providing evidence to reject ECTR. If the reflex sympathetic dystrophy probability is increased in the ECTR group in a third one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICUR increases to $202,657.88/QALY gained, providing strong evidence to reject ECTR. CONCLUSIONS: There is still uncertainty associated with the costs and effectiveness of ECTR and OCTR. To obtain a definitive answer as to whether the ECTR is more effective than the OCTR, it is necessary to perform a large, randomized, controlled trial in which the utilities and resource use are measured prospectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".