Is Carpal Tunnel Release an Effective Treatment for Patients with Suspected Concurrent Carpal Tunnel and Pronator Syndrome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Some patients with a confirmed diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) on clinical examination and electrodiagnostic testing (EDX) may also have one or more clinical features of pronator syndrome (PS). However, the EDX is negative for PS. We label these patients as suspected concurrent carpal tunnel and pronator syndrome (CCPS). We suspect that this is a presentation of reverse double crush syndrome that occurs when a symptomatic distal compression neuropathy converts an asymptomatic proximal compression into a symptomatic one. We believe both compressions can be relieved by decompressing the median nerve only at the wrist. The aim of our study is to determine whether carpal tunnel release (CTR) is an effective treatment for patients suffering from CCPS. Methods: This is a prospective, cohort study of the outcomes of CTR in two matched groups with 37 patients in each group. Group A included patients with suspected CCPS and group B included patients with isolated CTS. All patients were evaluated pre-operatively and 1 year after surgery using the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ). At one year, patients were also assessed for residual symptoms and positive provocative tests. Results: A significant improvement in the symptom and functional severity scales (SSS and FSS) of the BCTQ was noted in both groups. The degree of improvement in SSS was similar in both groups; however, group A showed a greater improvement in FSS. This could be attributed to higher pre-operative values in some items of FSS in group A. No patients in either group had residual symptoms severe enough to necessitate further treatment. Conclusion: The outcomes of CTR are similar in patients with isolated CTS and suspected CCPS and a CTR may be sufficient to address symptoms of CTS and PS in patients with CCPS. Level of Evidence: Level II (Therapeutic)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".