Affiliation: | 1. Neuromusculoskeletal Research Center, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran;2. Medical Students Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran;3. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran |
Abstract: | ObjectiveTo review the literature and assess the comparative effectiveness of ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided local corticosteroid injections in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).Data SourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science (from inception to February 1, 2017).Study SelectionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided injection with landmark-guided injection in patients with CTS were included.Data ExtractionTwo authors independently screened abstracts and full texts. The outcomes of interest were Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) and Functional Status Scale (FSS) scores of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and 4 electrodiagnostic parameters, including compound muscle action potential (CMAP), sensory nerve action potential (SNAP), distal motor latency (DML), and distal sensory latency (DSL).Data SynthesisOverall, 569 abstracts were retrieved and checked for eligibility; finally, 3 RCTs were included (181 injected hands). Pooled analysis showed that ultrasound-guided injection was more effective in SSS improvement (mean difference [MD], ?.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], ?.59 to ?.32; P<.00001), whereas no significant difference was observed between the 2 methods in terms of the FSS (MD, ?.25; 95% CI, ?.56 to .05; P=.10). There were also no statistically significant differences in improvements of CMAP (MD, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.01 to 3.07; P=.05), SNAP (MD, ?0.02; 95% CI, ?6.27 to 6.23; P>.99), DML (MD, .05; 95% CI, ?.30 to .39; P=.80), or DSL (MD, .00; 95% CI, ?.65 to .65; P>.99).ConclusionsThis review suggested that ultrasound-guided injection was more effective than landmark-guided injection in symptom severity improvement in patients with CTS; however, no significant differences were observed in functional status or electrodiagnostic improvements between the 2 methods. |