Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Introduction: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common entrapment neuropathy. This meta-analysis compared local steroid injections (LSIs) versus carpal tunnel release (CTR) for the management of CTS. Neurophysiological parameters, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the complication rate were investigated. We hypothesized that LSIs may represent an effective and safe alternative to surgical management. Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. All the clinical investigations comparing LSIs versus CTR for carpal tunnel syndrome were accessed. In March 2022, the following databases were accessed: Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. No time constrains were used for the search. The risk of bias and statistical analyses were conducted using the Review Manager Software 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). Results: Data from 1096 procedures were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 12.3 (1 to 58) months. The mean age of the patients was 51.1 ± 4.6. Nocturnal paraesthesia (p < 0.0001) and visual analogue scale (p < 0.0001) were greater in the LSIs cohort. No difference was found in the functional (p = 0.2) and symptom (p = 0.4) subscales of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), median nerve distal motor latency (p = 0.9), median nerve motor amplitude (p = 0.7), median nerve sensory conduction velocity (p = 0.4), or median nerve sensory amplitude (p = 0.3). No difference was found in terms of minor complications (p = 0.9). No major complications were observed within the duration of follow-up. Conclusion: Both CTR and LSIs were effective and feasible in reducing symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome. Though LSIs led to greater pain relief, this superiority was not permanent. Irrespective of the severity of the symptoms, current evidence suggests that a cycle of LSIs may be considered in patients with CTS. However, patients must be aware that LSIs may not be the definitive therapy, and CTR should be recommended.
Introduction: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common entrapment neuropathy. This meta-analysis compared local steroid injections (LSIs) versus carpal tunnel release (CTR) for the management of CTS. Neurophysiological parameters, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the complication rate were investigated. We hypothesized that LSIs may represent an effective and safe alternative to surgical management. Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. All the clinical investigations comparing LSIs versus CTR for carpal tunnel syndrome were accessed. In March 2022, the following databases were accessed: Pubmed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase. No time constrains were used for the search. The risk of bias and statistical analyses were conducted using the Review Manager Software 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). Results: Data from 1096 procedures were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 12.3 (1 to 58) months. The mean age of the patients was 51.1 ± 4.6. Nocturnal paraesthesia (p < 0.0001) and visual analogue scale (p < 0.0001) were greater in the LSIs cohort. No difference was found in the functional (p = 0.2) and symptom (p = 0.4) subscales of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ), median nerve distal motor latency (p = 0.9), median nerve motor amplitude (p = 0.7), median nerve sensory conduction velocity (p = 0.4), or median nerve sensory amplitude (p = 0.3). No difference was found in terms of minor complications (p = 0.9). No major complications were observed within the duration of follow-up. Conclusion: Both CTR and LSIs were effective and feasible in reducing symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome. Though LSIs led to greater pain relief, this superiority was not permanent. Irrespective of the severity of the symptoms, current evidence suggests that a cycle of LSIs may be considered in patients with CTS. However, patients must be aware that LSIs may not be the definitive therapy, and CTR should be recommended.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.