الفهرس 
Review of literatureOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 100 |  |  |
| | | from | 100 | | |
Abstract
This study included fifty patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. They were operated in the orthopedic department, Menofia University Hospital and Samanoud general hospital from March 2018 to May 2019 with a minimal follow up period 6 months.
All patients that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were divided into two groups by closed enveloped method each twenty-five patients. group (A) treated by the traditional (classic) carpal tunnel release. group (B) treated by minimal invasive carpal tunnel release by transverse mini incision.
Patients were enrolled in this study according to inclusion criteria both gender ,age 18-60 years old, diagnosed clinically with CTS defined according to the criteria of the American Academy of Neurology practice parameters and confirmed by Electro Diagnostic Study (E.D.S) prolonged (M.N) distal motor latencies >4.5 m/s or prolonged MN distal sensory latencies >3.5 m/s). Meanwhile, patients were excluded for prior carpal tunnel release procedure, history of trauma to the wrist or hand that included fracture, polyneuropathy, proximal median or ulnar neuropathy, cervical radiculopathy or cervical spondylosis, Pregnancy or being within 3 months postpartum for women.
Patients were evaluated for history and demographic characteristics, clinical examination (numbness and provocative tests of CTS), E.M.G N.C.S, radiological investigation and post-operative scoring systems (DASH, MMWS scores).
There was no significant difference regarding sex, occupation, chronic diseases (hypertension), Diabetic/Hypertensive patients, healthy patients, diabetic patients, nerve entrapment, side affected , anesthesia, operative time ,DASH score, MMWS score ,VAS score at (2-10) days (1 month – 3 months – 6 months), hand grip, Scar and cosmetic , 2-point discrimination, deep sensation , thenar atrophy , tinel’s test, Phalen’s test, nerve injury. There was highly- significant difference regarding return to work.
Complications: Two patients in group A had scar hypertrophy, 2 in group B had ulnar neuritis because the incision was more to ulnar side and resolved spontaneously after 3 weeks.
Using both techniques enabled the patients to return to their work but in group B was earlier 1-2 weeks than group A.
Conclusions
80
Conclusions
The classic technique is safe but it has side effects like scar problems and return to work late compared with min-invasive thechnique.
But in mini-invasive technique, it needs high skills and it may lead to injury to neurovascular structures during cutting the TCL blindly, less scar problems and return to their works earlier than those operated by the classic technique