Search

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided (US-guided) versus landmark-guided (LM-guided) local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods: Database including Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The outcomes mainly included Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ): Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQs), Functional Status Scale (BCTQf); and electrophysiological indexes: distal motor latency (DML), sensory distal latency (SDL), compound muscle action potential (CAMP), sensory nerve action potential amplitude (SNAP), and sensory nerve conduction velocity (SNCV). Adverse events were also recorded. Results: Overall, nine RCTs were finally screened out with 469 patients (596 injected hands). Pooled analysis showed that US-guided injection was more effective in BCTQs (SMD, −0.69; 95% CI, −1.08 to −0.31; P = 0.0005), BCTQf (SMD, −0.23; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.07; P = 0.005), CAMP (MD, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.35−0.94; P < 0.0001) improvement, and a lower rate of adverse events (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22−0.52; P < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis revealed that the US-guided injection had significantly better CMAP than the LM-guided for the in-plane approach (MD, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.36−1.01; P < 0.0001) but not for the out-plane approach (MD, 0.39; 95% CI, −0.39 to 1.17; P = 0.33). Conclusions: US-guided injection was superior to LM-guided injection in symptom severity, functional status, electrodiagnostic, and adverse events improvement for CTS. To some extent, the in-plane approach yields better results compared with the out-plane process under US guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To evaluate efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), we conducted this meta-analysis, as well as proposed a protocol for its application in curative processes. Methods. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PRP for the management of mild or moderate CTS were included in this study. Database search was conducted from study inception to July 2020, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. We used visual analogue scores (VAS) and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) as evaluation tools for primary outcomes. Second outcomes comprised cross-sectional area (ΔCSA) and electrophysiological indexes including distal motor latency (DML), sensory peak latency (SPL), motor nerve conduction velocity (MNCV), sensory nerve conduction velocity (SNCV), compound muscle action potential (CMAP), and sensory nerve action potential (SNAP). The pooled data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted with the evidence of heterogeneity. Egger' test was used to investigate publication bias. Results. 9 RCTs were finally screened out with 434 patients included. Control groups comprised corticosteroid injection in 5 trials, saline injection in 1 trial, and splint in 3 trials. At the 1st month after follow-up, only ΔCSA between the PRP group and the control group showed significant difference (P < 0.05). In the 3rd month, there were statistically significant differences in VAS, BCTQ, SPL, SNCV, and ΔCSA between two groups (P < 0.05), while no statistically significant differences were found in the remaining outcomes. In the 6th month, there were statistically significant differences at BCTQ (P < 0.05) in primary outcomes and ΔCSA (P < 0.05) in secondary outcomes between two groups. As to adverse events in PRP injection, only one study reported increased pain sensation within 48 h after injections. Conclusion. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that the PRP could be effective for mild to moderate CTS and superior to traditional conservative treatments in improving pain and function and reducing the swelling of the median nerve for a mid-long-term effect. To some extent, the electrophysiological indexes also improved after PRP injection compared with others conservative treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and local corticosteroid injection (LCI) for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), and some studies showed that the effect of ESWT was superior to LCI. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the clinical effects across the two therapies. Methods: Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ESWT and LCI for the treatment of CTS were searched in electronic database. The Cochrane risk bias tool was used for quality assessment. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies, a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed. The protocol for this systematic review was registered on INPLASY (202080025) and is available in full on the inplasy.com (https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2020.8.0025) Results: A total of 5 RCT studies with 204 patients were included from the electronic database. The meta-analysis results showed that two therapies were not significantly different in terms of visual analog scale (VAS) score (P = 0.65), Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BQ) score (P = 0.14), sensory distal latency (P = 0.66), and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) of the sensory nerve (P = 0.06). There were significant differences between the results of motor distal latency (P < 0.0001), compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude (P < 0.00001), and sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) amplitude (P = 0.004). Conclusions: In terms of pain relief and function improvement, the effects of ESWT and LCI are not significantly different. In terms of electrophysiological parameters, LCI has a stronger effect on shortening motor distal latency; ESWT is superior to LCI in improving action potential amplitude. ESWT is a noninvasive treatment with fewer complications and greater patient safety. In light of the heterogeneity and limitations, these conclusions require further research for definitive conclusions to be drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the pros and cons of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) versus kyphoplasty (PKP) for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) with intravertebral cleft (IVC) including all available evidence from controlled trials. Methods: Databases including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data were searched to identify relevant studies comparing PVP and PKP for OVCFs with IVC. The outcomes mainly included visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), local kyphotic angle (LKA), rate of vertebral height (VH%), and adverse events. Results: Nine studies enrolling 688 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. The results indicated no significant differences between the two groups in the short-and long-term VAS, ODI, LKA, or VH% (P > 0.05). Compared with PVP, PKP was associated with significantly longer operation time (P < 0.05), higher cost (P > 0.05), and more injected cement volume (P < 0.05). In terms of adverse events, PKP has a lower risk of cement leakage (P < 0.05), while with no significant difference in adjacent-level fracture rates (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The two procedures have similar short- and long-term pain relief, functional recovery, local kyphosis correction, and vertebral height maintenance in OVCFs with IVC. PKP is superior to PVP for the injected cement volume, and lower cement leakage rate, however, with longer operation time, more fluoroscopy times, and higher cost. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be conducted to confirm these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]