Pillar Pain After Minimally Invasive and Standard Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

PurposePillar pain is a recognized postoperative complication of carpal tunnel release (CTR). Minimally invasive and alternative surgical techniques can theoretically prevent pillar pain, and the aim of this review was to compare the incidence of pillar pain after standard open CTR and alternative surgical techniques.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were thoroughly searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive surgical techniques to standard open CTR were identified. Data, including surgical technique, number of hands, incidence of pillar pain, and follow-up intervals, were extracted. Odds ratios (OR) were expressed as pillar pain incidence in the intervention group relative to standard open CTR.ResultsThere were 12 studies included. No statistically significant differences were noted among endoscopic (OR = 0.53, P = .20), flexor retinaculum lengthening (OR = 1.00, P = 1.00), short incision (OR = 0.41, P = .07) or illuminated knife techniques (OR = 0.18, P = .16). There was a statistically significant decrease in pillar pain after minimally invasive CTR (OR = 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.20–0.86, I2 = 0%, P = .02) between 3- and 6-months follow-up; however, analyses at all other follow-up periods failed to reach statistical significance.ConclusionsAlthough our findings suggest that standard open CTR may be associated with an increased duration of pillar pain between 3 and 6 months postoperatively, our results suggest that minimally invasive CTR techniques do not affect either the initial development or persistence of pillar pain.Clinical relevanceOur results illustrate the natural history of pillar pain with the majority of cases resolving after 6 months, highlighting the utility of symptomatic and conservative treatments and patient education in the management of pillar pain. Pillar pain is a recognized postoperative complication of carpal tunnel release (CTR). Minimally invasive and alternative surgical techniques can theoretically prevent pillar pain, and the aim of this review was to compare the incidence of pillar pain after standard open CTR and alternative surgical techniques. MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were thoroughly searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive surgical techniques to standard open CTR were identified. Data, including surgical technique, number of hands, incidence of pillar pain, and follow-up intervals, were extracted. Odds ratios (OR) were expressed as pillar pain incidence in the intervention group relative to standard open CTR. There were 12 studies included. No statistically significant differences were noted among endoscopic (OR = 0.53, P = .20), flexor retinaculum lengthening (OR = 1.00, P = 1.00), short incision (OR = 0.41, P = .07) or illuminated knife techniques (OR = 0.18, P = .16). There was a statistically significant decrease in pillar pain after minimally invasive CTR (OR = 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.20–0.86, I2 = 0%, P = .02) between 3- and 6-months follow-up; however, analyses at all other follow-up periods failed to reach statistical significance. Although our findings suggest that standard open CTR may be associated with an increased duration of pillar pain between 3 and 6 months postoperatively, our results suggest that minimally invasive CTR techniques do not affect either the initial development or persistence of pillar pain.

Topics & Concepts