The purpose of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire to produce an equivalent Korean version. A total of 53 patients completed the Korean version of the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire pre-operatively and 3 months after open carpal tunnel release. All 53 also completed the Korean version of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire pre-operatively and 3 months post-operatively. Reliability was measured by determining the test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients and paired t-tests, and internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Pearson correlation analysis was carried out on the Korean version of the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire scores and the Korean version of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores to assess construct validity. Responsiveness was evaluated using effect sizes and standardized response means. The reliability of the Korean version of the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire was good. The scores in the Korean version of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand strongly correlated with the scores in the Korean version of the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. Standardized response mean and effect size were both large for the Korean version of the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. The study shows that the Korean version of the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire is a reliable, valid and responsive instrument for measuring outcomes in carpal tunnel syndrome.

BackgroundA systematic literature review of interspinous dynamic stabilization, including DIAM, Wallis, Coflex, and X-STOP, was conducted to assess its safety and efficacy.MethodsThe search was done in Korean and English, by using eight domestic databases which included KoreaMed and international databases, such as Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 306 articles were identified, but the animal studies, preclinical studies, and studies that reported the same results were excluded. As a result, a total of 286 articles were excluded and the remaining 20 were included in the final assessment. Two assessors independently extracted data from these articles using predetermined selection criteria. Qualities of the articles included were assessed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).ResultsThe complication rate of interspinous dynamic stabilization has been reported to be 0% to 32.3% in 3- to 41-month follow-up studies. The complication rate of combined interspinous dynamic stabilization and decompression treatment (32.3%) was greater than that of decompression alone (6.5%), but no complication that significantly affected treatment results was found. Interspinous dynamic stabilization produced slightly better clinical outcomes than conservative treatments for spinal stenosis. Good outcomes were also obtained in single-group studies. No significant difference in treatment outcomes was found, and the studies compared interspinous dynamic stabilization with decompression or fusion alone.ConclusionsNo particular problem was found regarding the safety of the technique. Its clinical outcomes were similar to those of conventional techniques, and no additional clinical advantage could be attributed to interspinous dynamic stabilization. However, few studies have been conducted on the long-term efficacy of interspinous dynamic stabilization. Thus, the authors suggest further clinical studies be conducted to validate the theoretical advantages and clinical efficacy of this technique.

No abstract

No abstract