Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_574_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
78 Мб
Скачать

Part VII: Nerve Compression

35
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release: The Single-Portal Mirza Technique
Tamara D. Rozental, Charles S. Day,and Orrin I. Franko
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
&
INTRODUCTION
Carpal tunnel syndromeisthe most common compression neuropathy in the upper extremity.Patients failing conservative treatment with splinting and/or corticosteroid injection often require surgical release to alleviate the paresthesias and numb­ness whichcharacte rize the disease. The firstcarpal tunnel release was performed in 1924 by Herbert Galloway (1). Since then, avariety of incisions have been described to visualize the transverse carpal ligament (TCL) and avoid injury to the underlying median nerve. Open carpal tunnel release continues to be the gold standard for decompression of the median nerve but reports of pillar pain and prolonged discomfort over the palmar incision have led to the development of endoscopic techniques.There are twomainendoscopicapproachesfor carpal tunnel release: single- or double-portal techniques. This chapter reviewsendoscopic carpal tunnel release through the Mirza single-portal distal entry technique. This uniportal tech­niquewas developedafter reports of injuries to anatomic structuresatthe distal aspect of the TCL and allows direct visualization of the superficial palmar arch, median nerve, and flexor tendons (2).
&
INDICATIONS
The indications for the Mirza carpal tunnel release technique
are generally the same as those open carpal tunnel surgery.
They include aclinical diagnosis of median nerve compression
at the carpal tunnel in patients (1) failing conservative treatment
or (2) with thenar weakness or atrophy.
Authors disagree on absolute contraindications to endo­scopic carpal tunnel release. Reported contraindications to date include:
&
Need for extensive neurolysis or tenosynovectomy
&
Mass in the carpal canal
&
Inflammatory arthritis (due to increased risk of aggravating the inflammatory process)
&
Peripheral neuropathy
&
Anatomic abnormalities
&
Vasospastic disorders
&
Prior carpal tunnel release
&
Thenar weakness requiring tendon transfer
&
Pregnancy (due to excessive weight gain and edema)
&
Dupuytren’s contracture or other conditions limiting finger or wrist extension
&
Patients on anticoagulant therapy.
&
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
See discussion in Chapter 36.
&
SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
&
Positioning
The patient is positioned supine with the wrist in neutral position. Twoinitial lines of incisions are drawn: one longi­tudinal in linewith thethird web spaceand theother transversely across the radially abducted thumb. A1.5 cm incision is marked from the intersection of these two lines proximally.Anadditional marker for the incision is the ulnar border of the flexed ring finger which should lie within the
1.5 cm incision. Tw oadditional longitudinal lines are drawn in the distal forearm: one radial to the flexor carpi ulnaris tendon and the other along the palmaris longus tendon. The midpoint between these lines is marked with an “x” to aim the cannula between the median and ulnar neurovascular bundles (Fig. 1).
&
Technique
The skin is incised and the edges are undermined. ARagnell retractor is placed on either side of the incision and the skin edges are retracted, pulling the palmar fascia away from the underlying neurovascularbundle. The palmar fascia is divided longitudinally to expose the midpalmar fat. The median nerve, superficial palmar arch, and TCL are then identified (Fig. 2). The retractors are repositioned to include the palmar fascia. Apathisthencreated by bluntdissection(with ablunt hemostat)between theTCL andthe contentsofthe carpal canal, aiming ulnarly towards the “x” in the distal forearm. The forearmisthen elevated and the wrist extended over a bolster to introduce the dissector (A.M. Surgical,Smithtown, NewYork).The dissectorisaimedbetweenthe twolines marked on the forearm. Once the pathway is createdwith the dissector,adissecting obturator is introduced (Fig. 3). The tip of the obturator should rest against the undersurface of the TCL at all times. Once the cannula tip is palpable through the skin beneath the “x”, the obturator is removed and the cannula is left in place with the slot facing slightly ulnar.Astandard 4mm30 8 endoscope is introducedthrough theslott ed cannulaand oriented toward the slot (Fig. 4A,B). The TCL is visualized through the endoscope and any remaining tenosynovium is removed with the dissecting obturator (Fig. 5). The median nerve is visualized by rotating the cannula radially (Fig. 6).
Once propercannula placement is verified, the cannula is once againrotated ulnarly to visualize the TCL andthe flexor tendons (Fig. 7). Once aclear view of the TCL is obtained, the endoscope is removed and amounting blade is attached to the end of the scope with alocking device (Fig. 8). The TCL is dividedbyadvancing theblade underdirect endoscopic visualization throughthe cannulafromdistaltoproximal (Fig. 9A,B). The TCL division is complete when the blade is palpable through the skin in the distal forearm, proximal to the wrist flexion crease. The blade can then be removed and the endoscope reinserted to visualize the divided edges of the TCL (Fig. 10). The median nerve and flexor tendons can also be visualized by rotating the cannula radially and ulnarly,respect­ively. Finally, theendoscopeisremoved andthe obturator re-inserted. The entire assembly is then brought out together.
&
Closure
Following irrigati on and hemostasis, the skin is closedwith interrupted sutures. Asoft compressive dressing is then applied.
&
OUTCOMES AND RESULTS
Since the introduction of endoscopic carpal tunnel release, the hand surgery literaturehas seen the proliferation of articles reporting on the results, outcomes, and complications of the technique. Enthusiasts emphasizelower postoperative morbidity,better functional outcomes in the short term, and a reduced period of disability.Opponents have focused on the
higher rates of complications encountered with the endoscopic technique,particularlyinits early stages.Mirza initially reported on 280 cases of endoscopic releases using the above described technique. Mean grip strength approached preopera­tivevalue sbythe fourthpostoperativeweek andpatients returned to work at amean of 14 days after surgery.Nopatients reported pillar pain or scar tenderness (2).
Multiple prospective randomized trials comparing open with endoscopiccarpaltunnelrelease havesince been performed. Trumble et al. performed amulticenter randomized trial using the single-portal Agee technique and atraditional open carpal tunnel release (3). They found that patients treated with the endoscopic release had better functional outcomes in the first three months after surgery and returned to work at a faster rate. These findings, however,have not been consistent throughout theliterature.Other randomizedtrials have reported similar outcomes and return to work times in both patient groups (4,5). In addition, some series have reported higher rates of reoperation in patients treated with endoscopic carpal tunnel release, negating the positive effect of afaster return to activities of dailyliving. Ameta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials was published in 2004 (6). The study supported the conclusion that scar tenderness and grip strength were better in patients treated with endoscopic tech­niques. They also found ahigher rate of reversible nerve injuries among these patients. The results in terms of pain and return to work wereinconclusive (6). To date, no randomized studies have been published comparing the Mirza technique with open carpal tunnel release.
&
COMPLICATIONS
Reported complication rates using the endoscopic technique range from 0.2% to 5% (7). Many of themoredramatic complications, however,occurred during the early develop­ment stages of thetechnique andhavebeenaddressed by changes in the design of the instrumentation.
The original Agee technique resulted in several cases of nerve transection (8). Since then, the blade assembly has been redesigned and alargemulticenter trial using the new device found acomplicationrateof1.8%(9).Due to incomplete visualization of the TCL, Chow modified his original trans­bursal techniquetoanextrabursalinsertionpoint.Nagle compared the two methods and found that the complication rate of 11%using the original technique dropped to 2.2% once the new insertion point was utilized (10).
Injury to anatomic structures at the distal aspect of the TCL lead Mirza to develop auniportal technique allowing direct visualization of the superficial palmar arch, median nerve, and flexor tendons. During his early experience, Mirza reported two cases of transient ulnar nerve neuropraxia. In addition, one patient sustained apartial transaction of the median nerve repaired at the time of surgery and the other patienthad an incomplete releas eofthe TCLrequiring reoperation. After redesigning the instrumentation, amore recentreport of 475patientsrevealedone case of reflex sympathetic dystrophy,one transient neuropraxia, and one blade failure (11).
There arevarying reports in theliterature regarding conversion of endoscopic carpaltunnelrelease to open procedures. Saw et al. reported a12% conversion rate secondary to fogging of the lens during the procedure and incomplete visualization of the TCL (8). Other authors have reported a conversion rate of 2% (Mirza).
FIGURE 1 The 1.5 cm incision is marked and two additional longitudi­nal lines are drawn in the distal forearm. The midpoint between these lines is marked with an “x” to aim the cannula between the median and ulnar neurovascular bundles.
276
&
Rozental et al.
FIGURE 2 Following skin incision, the skin edges are retracted, pulling the palmar fascia away from the underlying neurovascular bundle. Themediannerve ( asterisk), superficial palmar arch ( white arrow)and
transverse carpal ligament ( black arrow)are then identified.
FIGURE 3 The dissectorisaimed betweenthe two lines marked on the forearm.Once the pathway is created with the dissector, adissecting obturatorisintroduced.
Disposable knife
(A)
(B)
Cannula
Locking
device
FIGURE 4 ( A )Astandard 4mm30 8 endoscope is introduced through the cannula. ( B )The disposableknife, cannula, and lockingdevice unassembled.
The Single-Portal Mirza Technique
&
277
FIGURE 6 The median nerve is visualized by rotating the cannula radially.
FIGURE 7 The cannula can be rotated ulnarly to visualize the trans­verse carpal ligamentand the flexor tendons.
FIGURE 5 The transverse carpal ligament is visualized through the endoscope.
FIGURE 8 The mounting blade is attached to the end of the scope with alocking device.
(A)
(B)
FIGURE9 ( A,B )The transverse carpal ligament Lisdivided by advancing the blade under direct endoscopic visualization through the cannula from distal to proximal.
278
&
Rozental et al.
To date, the following complications have been reported
with endoscopic carpal tunnel release:
&
Injury to the median nerve: Dheansa and Belcher 4reported two cases of median nerve injury using the original Agee technique in patients under general anesthesia (12).
&
Injury to theulnar nerve: casesofulnar nervetrans­action havebeenreportedusing theChowtwo-por tal technique. This type of injury is thought to be the result of entry into Guyon’s canal instead of the carpal canal, or of loopingunderthe neurovascularbundle (13,14). More commonperhaps arecases of transientulnar nerve neuropraxia.
&
Injury to digital nerves: these range from transient digital nerve neuropraxia to complete nerve transaction (15).
&
Injury to superficial palmar arch(16).
&
Injury to the flexor tendons: this was originally described in apatient with arthritic contractures who was unable to fully extend the wrist and metacarpophalangeal joints. The flexor digitorum superficialis to the ring finger was found to be tethered around the arthroscopicsheath (17).
&
Incomplete transection of the TCL leading to recurrence of symptoms and reoperation (7).
&
PEARLS AND PITFALLS
We have attemptedover40Mirza single-portal endoscopic carpal tunnel releases in our practice thus far.Toavoid compli­cations, theinsertionofthe blunthemostat, elevator,and dissecting cannula under the TCL is always performed gently and without significant force. If resistance is met at any point in the process, the procedureisconverted to an open carpal tunnel release. We also actively identify the recurrent motor branch to ensure that it is not at risk along the radial side of the incision. In addition, when inserting the dissecting cannula proximally and ulnarintothe distal forearm,care must be takentoavoid compressing the recurrent motor branch against the proximal aspect of the cannula.
At present, ourconversionrate to open carpal tunnel release is approximately 20%. Following these careful guide­lines, we have not had any complications to date.
&
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic carpal tunnel release continues to generate interest among hand surgeons and patients alike. Despite worrisome reports of complications in the initial stages, modifications to thesurgicaltechniques andinstrumentation haveyielded improved clinical results. The Mirza technique allows direct visualization of the distal edge of the TCL, wheremost compli­cations occur.Published series have revealed excellent patient satisfactionbut randomized trials comparingthe distal uniportal technique with open techniques as well as to other endoscopic techniques are needed to validate the outcomes of these studies.
&
SUMMATION POINTS
Indications
&
Same as for open procedure
&
Failure of conservative treatment
&
Thenar weakness or wasting
Contraindications
&
Space-occupying lesions
&
Limited wrist or finger extension
&
Congenital wrist anomalies
&
Any factor affecting the anatomy of the carpal canal
&
Pregnancy
&
Inflammatory arthritis (relative)
&
Prior carpal tunnel release (relative)
&
Patients on anticoagulant therapy (relative)
Outcomes
&
Similar outcome to other endoscopic or open carpal tunnel release
&
Grip strength approached preoperative values by the fourth postoperative week
&
Return to work at amean of 14 days after surgery
&
No pillar pain or scar tenderness
Complications
&
Transient neuropraxia
&
Reflex sympathetic dystrophy
&
Blade failure
&
REFERENCES
1. Amadio PC.The first carpal tunnel release? JHand Surg 1995; 20B:40–1.
2. Mirza MA, King ET,Tanveer S. Palmar uniportal extrabursal endoscopic carpal tunnel release. Arthroscopy 1995; 11(1):82–90.
3. Trumble TE,Diao E, Abrams RA, Gilbert-Anderson MM. Single­portal endoscopiccarpal tunnel release compared with open release: aprospective, randomized trial. JBone Joint Surg 2002; 84A:1107–15.
4. Ferdinand RD, MacLean JGB. Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. JBone Joint Surg2002; 84B:375–9.
5. MacDermid JC, RichardRS, Roth JH, King GJK. Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release: arandomized trial. JHand Surg 2003; 28A:475–80.
6. Thoma A, Ve ltri K, Haines T, Duku E. Ameta-analysisofrandom­ized controlled trials comparing endoscopic and open carpal tunnel decompression. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 11 4:1137–46.
FIGURE 10 The blade is removed and the endoscope reinserted to visualize the divided edges of the transverse carpal ligament.
The Single-Portal Mirza Technique
&
279
7. Chow JCY,Hantes ME. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release: thirteen years’ experience with the Chow technique.JHand Surg 2002; 27A:1011–8.
8. Saw NLB, Jones S, Shepstone L, Meyer M, Chapman PG , Logan AM. Early outcomes and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release: arandomized prospective trial. JHand Surg2003; 28B:444–9.
9. Agee JM, McCarroll HRJ, Tortosa RD, et al. Endoscopic release of the carpal tunnel: arandomized prospective multicenter study. JHand Surg[Am] 1992; 17:987–95.
10. Nagle DJ. Amulticenter prospective review of 640 endoscopic carpal tunnel releases using the transbursal and extrabursal chow techniques. Arthroscopy 1996; 12(2):139–43.
11.Mirza MA, King ET.Newer techniquesofcarpal tunnel release. Orthop Clin North Am 1996; 27(2):355–71.
12. Dheansa BS, Belcher HJ. Median nerve contusion during endo­scopic carpal tunnel release. JHand Surg1998; 23B:110–1.
13. Del Pinel F, Cruz-Camara A, Jado E. Ulnar nerve transection as a complication of two-portal endoscopiccarpal tunnel release: acase report. JHand Surg1993; 18A:896–8.
14. Nath RK, Mackinnon SE, We eks PM .Ulnar nerve transaction during endoscopic carpal tunnel release. JHand Surg 1993; 18:896–8.
15. Jeon IH, Kim PT,Park IH, Park BC, Ihn JC. High bifurcation of median nerve at the wrist causing common digital nerve injury in endoscopic carpal tunnel release. JHand Surg2003; 27B:580–2.
16. Brown RA, Gelberman RH, Seiler JGR, et al. Carpal tunnel release. Aprospective, randomized assessment of open and endoscopic methods. JBone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75:1265–75 (see comments).
17. Scoggin JF,Whipple TL.Apotential complication of endoscopic carpal tunnel release. Arthroscopy 1992; 8:363–5.
280
&
Rozental et al.
36
Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release: Chow Technique
James C.Y.Chow
Orthopaedic Center of Southern Illinois, Mount Vernon,Illinois, U.S.A.
Athanasios A. Papachristos
Orthopaedic Research Foundation of Southern Illinois, Mount Vernon, Illinois, U.S.A.
&
INTRODUCTION
&
History
Carpal tunnel syndrome was recognized by Sir James Paget in 1854 as amedian nerve compression following afracture of the distal radius (1,2). Later in 1880, James Putman, aneurologist from Boston, reported the symptoms suffered by agroup of his patients (3) which would be considered as adescription of a classic carpal tunnel syndrome today.The first formal descrip­tion of the surgical release of transverse carpal ligament for the treatment of this pathologic condition was reported in 1933 (4) followed by Phalen’s classic article in 1950 (5). Since that time, open carpal tunnel release has been established as the gold standard for the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.
&
Evolution of the Chow Technique
Dr.James C.Y.Chow began working on endoscopic release of the transverse carpal ligament in 1985, unaware that both Dr. IchiroOkutsu in Japan and Dr.John Agee in California were working on similar aims at approximately the same time. The primary motivation of Dr.Chow’s concept wastocreatea method for the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome that could be able to preserve normal anatomic structures of the wrist and hand by minimizing the surgical wound and thus, resulting in abetter clinical outcome. Through persistent trials and different approaches, aslotted cannula was developed late in 1986. Following several monthsofrepetitive practice on cadaveric hands, the procedure was completed in May 1987 and it was first performed in apatient in September of the same year.There havebeensomemodifications of theoriginal procedure since its conception.
Thefirst tworeportsinthe literature on thetopi cof endoscopic carpaltunnelrelease,writtenbyChowand Okutsu et al. separately,were published in the March issue of Arthroscopy Journal in 1989 (6,7). In thenextyear, Chow presented aconference paperbased on hisclinical results after endoscopic carpal tunnel release in 149 cases at the 1990 AANA Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida (8). In the fall of the same year,another conference paper by Agee et al. (9) was presented at the 1990 American Society for Surgeryofthe Hand Annual MeetinginToronto,Canada, regardingthe clinical results of amulticenter study with the use of the Agee technique for the endoscopic release of the carpal ligament.
Therefore,three different surgical techniques were developed in distinct locations worldwide aiming at the same idea of minimal incision in the palm region for the surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The common denomi­nator of these three procedures is that they all utilize the current
technology in order to bring visualization of the surgery to a video monitor with the use of acamera. Since the publishing of thethree origi nalendoscopiccarpalligament releasetech­niques, there has been an increasinglycontinuous interestand also, alot of debate among surgeons regarding the safety and efficacy of endoscopic procedure versus the open one. Several modifications and variations to the three original ideas have been made since their initial demonstration (10,11).
&
INDICATIONS
Whenever asurgeon deals with apathologic situation that has to be managed surgically,specific criteria must be kept in mind in order to designate the most appropriate surgical technique. These criteria include indications–contraindications, exposure and visualization of the related anatomical structures,reprodu­cibility,areas onable learningcurve,and an acceptable complication rate. Endoscopic carpal tunnel release does have the potential to become adangerous procedureifperformed by inexperienced surgeons(12–15).Considerable intraoperative complications havebeenrep ortedthroughoutthe United States by surgeons who have used this technique (16–19). This situation has raised acontroversy among surgeons regarding the value of endoscopy for carpal tunnel surgery.However,it has also been shown that endoscopic carpal ligament release can be performed safely by experienced surgeons, although its learning curve is steep sometimes, and can give both the patient and the surgeon agreat deal of satisfaction (20). The safety of this procedureseems to have improved not only due to the surgical experience that has been gained but also due to the instrumentationthat hasbeendev eloped andthe better knowledge of the endoscopic anatomy.
The indications for the open surgical release of transverse carpal tunnel ligament have been well established and, in most cases, they applytoendoscopiccarpaltunnelrelease. In most cases, previous conservative management by means of wrist splinting, alteration of daily activities, physical therapy, and nonsteroidalanti-inflammatory oral medication have failed.Aprevious performed open surgical releaseofthe carpal ligament was not considered to be acontraindication for the endoscopic procedure. Contraindications to the endo­scopic procedure include space-occupying lesions, limited wrist extension, congenitalwrist anomalies, andany factor that affects the anatomy of the region. Rheumatoid patients with abundant tenosynovium should be managed with caution as well as patients who had previously sustained afracture of the hook of hamate. These and other conditions that require direct visualization of the carpal canal are relative contraindications (21,22).Obesi ty,diabetes, andaprevious performed open
carpal tunnel release are not considered to be contraindications for the endoscopic release of the carpal ligament. During the endoscopic procedure, if any pathology or anatomic variation is detected which either limits the view or obstructs the access into thecarpalcanal, thesurgeon shouldconverttoanopen procedure. The patient should be well informed befo re surgery of apossibleconversionbecause of theafore­mentioned reasons.
Theadvantages of endoscopic over open carpaltunnel release include no hypertrophic scar or scar tenderness, no pillar pain, less compromise to the pinch or grip strength, and an earlier return-to-work and dailyactivities. However, the surgeon can be in front of unexpected difficulties, e.g., ganglion, neurofibroma, and neurilemmoma, that limit visualization into thecarpalcanal.Asinany surgicalprocedure,safetyand successare dependentupon athoroughknowledge of the anatomy of the area, adequate training, and familiarity with the use and capabilities of the instrumentation. Surgeons who are not familiarized with endoscopes and arthroscopic tech­niques may give rise to major iatrogenic complications.
&
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
Carpal tunnel syndrome is acompression neuropathy of the median nerve at the wrist and due to its incidence it counts for approximately 463,673 carpal tunnelreleasesperformed annuallyinthe UnitedStates (23,24). Patients whohave developed this syndromeusually presentwith atypical history of characteristic symptoms such as nocturnal pain and paresthesias, numbness to the distribution of the median nerve distal to thewrist,and weakness of thethenar muscles. Although history is very important in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome, the physician should also be aware about the patient’s general health condition and family history.Conge­nital diseases or anomalies, diseases of the connective tissue, systemic and metabolic disorders, and aprevious sustained injury to the distal forearm and wrist should be taken under consideration. Amalunited fracture of the distal radius, pre­viously performed surgery in the wrist area, and ahypoplastic or aplastic hook of the hamate (25) can produce difficulties while the surgeon is trying to access the carpal canal with the use of the custom designed surgical instrumentation.
Physical examination will assist in the patient evaluation. In an acute case, there is tenderness along the carpal canal area. Lightpercussion over themediannerve at the wristarea produces a“passing of electric current” sensation that radiates to the median nerve distribution known as Tinel’s sign. Phalen’s sign is evoked by holding the wrists at maximum flexion and the dorsal aspects of the hands in full contact like a“reverse praying” position. This position narrowsthe carpal canal and if reproduces the paresthesias in the fingers within 60 seconds, the sign is consideredpositive. As thepathologicalcondition advances, less time is necessary to evoke aresponse. Other examinationsinclude themonofilamenttest, two-point discrimination, reverse Phalen’s test, and tourniquet test. In the late stages, with thenar muscle atrophy,one can observe the muscle waste in the thenar area(26–28). Muscle weakness is tested subjectively by resisted palmar abduction of the thumb against the examiner’s index finger,and comparison of one hand to the other.Acarefully performed physical examination as wellasthe previous taken historywill both help the physician to distinguish betweenanisolatedcompression neuropathy at the wrist and adouble crush syndrome (29). Clinical correlation of the double crush phenomenon has been demonstratedbythe high incidenceofconcurrentcarpal
syndrome in patients with cervical radiculopathy (30,31). An equally high incidence of association of carpal tunnel syndrome and amore proximal entrapment of the median nerve has also been reported (32). Therefore, the physician must exclude the possibility of thoracic outlet syndrome, pronator compression syndrome in the forearm, and even acentral nervous system disease (33–35).
Electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) tests will also assist for the detection of carpal tunnel syndrome. Indications forsurgery should notbedecidedoraltered according to theresults of NCVtests, especially when the results are normal but the patient has the clinical signs and symptoms of the syndrome (36–40). Adelay of the distal latency of the median nerve of 7.0 msec or longer represents significant compression of the median nerve; if present, surgery should be considered without further delay.The most important aspects in diagnosingcarpaltunnelsyndrome arethe hist ory and physical examination. Electrodiagnostic studies of the median nerve are adjunct used to confirm the diagnosis and perhaps suggest how the patient will respond to surgery.
Wrist radiography can rule out any possibility of congenital or acquired bone and joint deformity,abnormality,orpathology. Previous sustained fractures of the distal forearm and wrist should be taken under consideration. Standard anteroposterior and lateral views of the distal forearm–wrist and atunnel view of the wrist are required, either to detect or put the examiner underskepticismfor further inve stigationofthe afore­mentioned conditions. If amore extensive study is indicated, magneticresonance imaging, computed tomography scan ultrasound bone scan, and arthrogram of the wrist may be necessary (41–43).
&
SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
Initially,the original technique was described by Chow as a transbursal approach to the carpal tunnel requiring penetration of the ulnar bursa (6,44). Due to the results of amulticenter study (45,46), the original technique has been modified in an attempt to decrease the complications and the learning curve. Theconversion to an extrabursal techniquehas made the surgicalprocedure much easier andsafer offering abetter visualizationofthe proximal transverse carpalligament (47–49). The following is adescription of theextrabursal, dual-portal technique.
&
Operating Room Setup
The patient is placed in asupine position and ahand table is used.Two videomonitors arepreferred,althoughsome surgeons can manage the procedure with only one. One of the two monitors should face the surgeon and the other should face the assistant. The surgeon sits on the ulnar side of the patient and the assistant faces the surgeon (Fig. 1A). The arthroscopic equipment consists of ashort 4.0 mm ! 308 video-endoscope that preventslight guide from interfering with the patient’s forearmbyhaving the lightpost on thesameside as the direction of view,acamera apparatus, alight cord, acamera inputdevice, andalightsourcedevice(Fig. 1B). Optional equipment includes aDVD video recorder and avideo printer for theprintingofany captured images.Water pump and shaver equipment is not used.
Astandard handset should be available. Specific instru­mentation for the procedure, designed by Dr.Chow,comprises an ECTRAe System Kit and an ECTRAe Disposable Kit (Smith &NephewEndoscopy, Andover, Massachusetts,U.S.A.).
282&Chow and Papachristos
The ECTRA System Kit includes the video-endoscope, slotted cannula, dissecting obturator,curved blunt dissector,palmar archsuppressor,probe, retractors, and hand holder (Fig. 2). The dissecting obturator is attached with adetachable handle that can also take some other types of obturators included in the kit (conical, boat-nose obturator),the latter are not beingused routinely.The ECTRA Disposable Kit includes aprobe knife, a triangle knife, aretrograde knife, ahand pad, and swabs (Fig. 3). These knives allow the surgeon to determine both the direction anddepth of cut. Standardpreparationsand drapingare
performed as usual without the application of atourniquet. Before the introduction of local anesthesia, askin marker is used to map landmarks for the entry and exit portals.
&
Anesthesia
Local anesthesia combined with intravenousmedicationisrec­ommended forthe procedurebecause it allows thepatient and thesurgeon to communicate. An alertpatient caninformthe surgeon, during theprocedure,about anyabnormalsensation in
Retractors
Hand holder
Slotted cannula
4mm x 30
˚
Videoendoscope
Probe
Palmar arch suppressor
Dissecting obturator
Curved blunt dissector
Detachable handle
FIGURE 2 Instrumentation included in the ECTRAe System Kit (Smith &Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, Massachusetts, U.S.A.).
Light cord
(B)
VideoEndoscope
Camera
Camerainput device
Light source device
(A)
FIGURE 1 ( A )Operating room setup for the endoscopiccarpal tunnel release using the Chow dual-portal technique. ( B )Arthroscopic equipment that is appropriate for the performance of this technique.
EndoscopicCarpal Tunnel Release: Chow Technique
&
283