A Controlled Trial Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Looped Thread Carpal Tunnel Release
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Open carpal tunnel release typically requires several weeks of recovery. A less invasive, ultrasound-guided percutaneous technique of releasing the transverse carpal ligament using a thread (thread carpal tunnel release [TCTR]) has been described. To date, its clinical effectiveness and safety have been evaluated exclusively by the group that developed the technique, using a single outcome measure without a control comparison. The objective of this study was to independently evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TCTR using multiple outcome measures and a control comparison. Methods: A convenience sample of 20 participants with refractory moderate or severe carpal tunnel syndrome underwent TCTR of their most symptomatic hand. Outcome measures included pre-TCTR and 1-, 3-, and 6-month post-TCTR Boston questionnaire; pre-, 3-, and 6-month post-TCTR monofilament sensibility, strength, ultrasound, and electrodiagnostic testing; weekly post-TCTR phone interviews for 1 month; and satisfaction surveys at 3 and 6 months post-TCTR. Results: No complications were reported. During the month post-TCTR, significant prompt improvements in hand pain and dysfunction occurred. The following significant improvements were demonstrated in the treated versus control hand: Boston Questionnaire scores, median nerve distal motor latency, transcarpal tunnel motor and sensory conduction velocities and sensory nerve action potential amplitudes. No significant differences in sensibility, pinch or grip strength, median nerve cross-sectional area (CSA) at the carpal tunnel inlet, or wrist: forearm median nerve CSA ratio were documented between TCTR and control sides. Satisfaction with the TCTR procedure was high (85%-90%). Conclusions: This study supports previous reports that the TCTR procedure is safe and effective.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".