Adıyaman Üniversitesi Kurumsal Arşivi

Comparative Results of Standard Open and Mini Open, KnifeLight Instrument-Assisted Carpal Tunnel Release

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.author Yücetaş, Şeyho Cem
dc.contributor.author Yıldırım, Adem
dc.date.accessioned 2022-07-01T07:17:23Z
dc.date.available 2022-07-01T07:17:23Z
dc.date.issued 2013
dc.identifier.issn 2193-6315
dc.identifier.uri http://dspace.adiyaman.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/20.500.12414/3321
dc.description.abstract Purpose The purpose of our study was to compare the results of standard open and mini open (approximately 1.5-cm incision), KnifeLight instrument (Stryker Instruments, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA) assisted carpal tunnel release (CTR) concerning symptomatic, functional, and electrophysiological aspects, as well as complications during early and late postoperative follow-up. Patients and Method Seventy-five patients who did not improve with nonsurgical methods and were planned to undergo surgery were separated into two groups. Patients in the first group (n = 37) underwent surgery with standard open CTR (Group A); patients in the second group (n = 38) underwent surgery with mini open KnifeLight instrument assisted CTR (Group B). Preoperative and 6-month postoperative electrophysiological values and functional utilization of the operated hand of both groups were compared. Nerve conduction studies were used for electrophysiological evaluation, visual analog scale (VAS) was used for pain evaluation, symptom severity scale (SSS) was used for symptomatic evaluation, and functional status scale (FSS) was used to evaluate hand functions that are the part of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. All evaluations were done preoperatively and repeated at postoperative month 6. Also, to determine early effects of surgical procedures, SSS and FSS scales were repeated at postoperative week 2 and month 3. Groups were also compared for complications and need for reoperation. Results No significant difference was detected between the two groups at postoperative month 6 on VAS and electrophysiological values. Postoperative week 2 FSS and SSS scores of Group B were significantly lower than Group A. Although scores were lower in Group B at month 3, there was no statistically significant difference. Six months after surgery, no significant difference was detected between the two groups in mean SSS and FSS scores. Postoperative complications and reoperation rates were lower in Group B but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion After 6 months the results of both techniques for CTR are comparable. Mini open KnifeLight instrument assisted CTR is easy to perform and is superior to standard open CTR in the early post-operative period. tr
dc.language.iso en tr
dc.publisher Thıeme Medıcal Publ Inc tr
dc.subject Carpal tunnel release tr
dc.subject Mini open technique tr
dc.subject Knifelight instrument tr
dc.title Comparative Results of Standard Open and Mini Open, KnifeLight Instrument-Assisted Carpal Tunnel Release tr
dc.type Article tr
dc.contributor.authorID 0000-0002-2891-1805 tr
dc.contributor.authorID 0000-0002-8291-0248 tr
dc.identifier.endpage 399 tr
dc.identifier.issue 6 tr
dc.identifier.startpage 393 tr
dc.identifier.volume 74 tr
dc.source.title Journal Of Neurological Surgery Part A-Central European Neurosurgery tr


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster