info

Friday, 30 March 2018

Comparison of Local versus General Anaesthesia for Carpal Tunnel Release




Carpal tunnel syndrome(CTS) is a common neuropathy, affecting the median nerve as it passes under the transverse carpal ligament. CTS is described as a nerve compression at the wrist plane, CTS causes numbness and tingling in the hand and fingers. Sir James Paget defined CTS first in1853, and since then, in the 1950s a scientist named George Phalen popularized the diagnosis and treatment of CTS. The aetiology of CTS is considered idiopathic in most cases but it is still controversial.
Conservative treatment consists of splinting or corticosteroid injections and surgical release of the carpal tunnel are the treatment method options. There has been continued debate over the optimal management of this disease. Decision of the surgeon has consistently varied.Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is known as an effective treatment for idiopathic CTS. CTR is performed with a variety of techniques such as endoscopic (ECTR) or open (OCTR). Literature has not got consensus on the superiority of any one technique to another.
Local anaesthesia (LA) and general anaesthesia (GA) are anaesthetic options on the surgical treatment of CTS. LA is safe, fast, and effective, but the injection could be painful. In one recent series, about 10% of patients indicated that they would prefer another form of anaesthesia. When applying the local anaesthetics under the skin patient could have pain and pain could make the patient uncomfortable. Also from the surgeon side discomfort of the patient could affect the surgical procedure and sometimes visualization of the surgical area could be difficult due to oedema caused by local anaesthetics. These problems in surgical procedure could affect the clinical results of the surgery. Sedation or GA could make the procedure more comfortable.
The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of the anaesthetic methods on the patient’s clinical results. To our knowledge this is the first report that compares the clinical outcomes of the open CTR with GA or LA.Computerized patient database was searched to identify all patients with CTS who underwent open CTR between January 2009 and January 2013 at Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital. The year 2013 was selected to ensure a minimum one-year follow-up. At the result of the search total of 148 patients (169 CTS hands) were found. Of the 148 patients (169 CTS hands) 21 patients were operated bilaterally and excluded from study. Of the 127 patient operated monolaterally. One patient died from another reason and 14 patients was not available and excluded from the study. Fifty five patients operated with GA (group A) and 57 patients with LA (group B). The last available 50 monolateral patient operated by the same surgeon for each group included to the study.

No comments:

Post a Comment

An Evaluation of the Role of fMRI in Patients with Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction

                                                 https://www.austinpublishinggroup.com/urology/ Patientswith Lower Urinary Tr...