Clinical Compairsons Between Short Incision And Traditional Incision For Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Objective: Through analysis and comparisons of cases in carpaltunnel release with short incision and traditional incision, exploredisadvantages and differences of short incision and traditionalincision in the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel release anddecompression in order to guide the treatment of carpal tunnelsyndrome better.Methods: Collect10cases of12sides in carpal tunnel releaseand decompression with short incision and follow-up for the treatmentof carpal tunnel syndrome from February2010to December2011. At thesame time,13cases of19sides was collected in carpal tunnel releaseand decompression with traditional incision and follow-up for thetreatment of carpal tunnel syndrome, to conduct clinical comparisons,follow-up and observe the patients in incision length, operating time,return-to-work time, functional recovery and complications.Results: Preoperative symptoms were improved with regard to theexcellent rates of the two groups of patients after6months were94.47%and91.67%, that is, no significant difference in the effectof long-term recovery; the goodrates in the postoperative1month and3months were36.84%,16.67%and73.68%,41.67%, that is superior tothe traditional incision group on a short term effect ofshort-incision group. But on the functional recovery of the earliesttime, the traditional incision group was earlier than the shortincision group; but on the length of time of functional recovery, comparing to the traditional incision group, the short incision groupwas also less. Follow-up after6months of postoperative scarformation and scar tenderness by comparing the traditional incisiongroup to short incision group, scar formation rates were21.1%and15.8%, the proportion of scar tenderness were8.3%and0, so on thescar formation or scar pain, the incidence of the short incision groupwas lower than the traditional incision group, the former over thelatter. The two groups of surgical incision length, operating timeand recovery work time of the two groups, the short incision groupwas less than the traditional incision group.Conclusions: In the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome,short incision and traditional incision have no significantdifference in efficacy. On the matter of time in functional recovery,the traditional incision is earlier than the small incision; andtraditional incision is also shorter than the short incision on thelength of functional recovery. In the complications, the proportionof scar formation and scar pain of traditional incision is greaterthan short incision. It is suggested that in the surgical treatmentof carpal tunnel syndrome, mild to moderate patients with mild earlysymptoms, as well as physical scars, or with the physical scars ofyoung women, should take a short incision; for severe patients withsevere symptoms, as well as older patients with no physical scars,should be adopted in traditional incision.