Carpal Tunnel Release with Ultrasound Guidance Versus Open and Mini-Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Carpal tunnel release (CTR) can be performed using several techniques, including traditional open CTR, mini-open CTR, endoscopic CTR (ECTR), and CTR with ultrasound guidance (CTR-US). Carpal tunnel release with ultrasound guidance allows the procedure to be performed through a small, nonpalmar incision while maintaining visualization of critical anatomy and may confer benefits in terms of early recovery and incision-related complications. The objective of this study was to compare CTR-US with traditional open or mini-open CTR based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: The electronic databases Embase and MEDLINE were searched from inception to November 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing CTR-US with traditional open or mini-open CTR were eligible for inclusion. Studies were assessed for eligibility from title and abstract followed by a full-text review. The main outcomes of interest were return to normal activity or return to work, patient-reported functional scores, and complications. Results: = .07). No domains were deemed to be at high risk of bias in any study. Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, CTR-US is a safe and effective surgical option for treating carpal tunnel syndrome with a similar risk profile to open CTR. Data suggest that patients who receive CTR-US have improved functional outcomes and faster return to work or normal activities. Future RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to corroborate these benefits and demonstrate long-term outcomes of CTR-US. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic II.
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 | 0.024 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.108 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".