Temporal Trend of Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery: A Population-Based Time Series Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is among the most common hand surgeries, although little is known about its pattern. In this study, we aimed to investigate temporal trends, age and gender variation and current practice patterns in CTR surgeries. METHODS: We conducted a population-based time series analysis among over 13 million residents of Ontario, who underwent operative management for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) from April 1, 1992 to March 31, 2010 using administrative claims data. RESULTS: The primary analysis revealed a fairly stable procedure rate of approximately 10 patients per 10,000 population per year receiving CTRs without any significant, consistent temporal trend (p = 0.94). Secondary analyses revealed different trends in procedure rates according to age. The annual procedure rate among those age >75 years increased from 22 per 10,000 population at the beginning of the study period to over 26 patients per 10,000 population (p<0.01) by the end of the study period. CTR surgical procedures were approximately two-fold more common among females relative to males (64.9% vs. 35.1 respectively; p<0.01). Lastly, CTR procedures are increasingly being conducted in the outpatient setting while procedures in the inpatient setting have been declining steadily - the proportion of procedures performed in the outpatient setting increased from 13% to over 30% by 2010 (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Overall, CTR surgical-procedures are conducted at a rate of approximately 10 patients per 10,000 population annually with significant variation with respect to age and gender. CTR surgical procedures in ambulatory-care facilities may soon outpace procedure rates in the in-hospital setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".