Bilateral Idiopathic Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: <scp>Clinical‐Functional</scp> Characterization and Efficacy of Two Combined Postoperative Physiotherapeutic Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of combined association instrument myofascial mobilization (IASTM) and stretching in patients with idiopathic bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) operated on one hand and to analyze the response of the operated (OH) and non-operated (NH) hand according to the sequence of therapies. Research on these parameters has not yet been found in the literature. METHODS: Randomized controlled crossover study with 43 participants using the objective and subjective outcome variables. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: starting with stretching followed by IASTM and starting with IASTM followed by stretching. Then patients underwent surgery on the hand with more severe involvement and physical therapy rehabilitation was started 30 days after for a period of 4 weeks. After the 1-week interval the participants who started with stretching were referred to IASTM and vice versa, following the same previous patterns. The outpatient reassessments took place at 3 to 6 months. Crossover ANOVA and effect sizes were used as analysis methods. RESULTS: Time was the most significant outcome for all variables both during therapies and at 6-month follow-up. Regarding response to the combined therapies between OH and NH, there were differences for both OH and NH, with the greatest impact on NH for the palmar grip and VAS variables. The treatment sequences were significant for pain on the NH and mental SF-12, suggesting that starting with IASTM followed by stretching had a superior outcome for these outcomes. CONCLUSION: The combination of IASTM with stretching, used in the postoperative period of bilateral idiopathic CTS, proved to be supplementary, with significant results and large effect sizes for most of the outcomes assessed, both during the time of application of the therapies and in the 6-month follow-up for both hands, and may constitute a viable therapeutic alternative for this population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".