4.2 Article

Incidence of Carpal Tunnel Release: Trends and Implications Within the United States Ambulatory Care Setting

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME
Volume 37A, Issue 8, Pages 1599-1605

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.04.035

Keywords

Carpal tunnel syndrome; carpal tunnel release; ambulatory surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To investigate the changes, trends, and implications of carpal tunnel release (CTR) surgery within an ambulatory setting over the past decade in the United States. Methods We undertook an analysis of ambulatory surgery center CTR cases using data from the National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention carried out this survey in 1996, and again in 2006. We searched the cases with the procedure codes indicative of CTR. Results The number of CTR procedures increased by 38% (from 360,000 to 577,000) between 1996 and 2006. In 1996, 16% of all ambulatory CTRs were performed in freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (hospital-based centers were 84%), and the proportion increased to 49% in 2006. By 2006, greater than 99% of CTRs were performed in an ambulatory setting. There was a significant increase in women aged 50 to 59 years of age undergoing CTR. Conclusions The minimal invasiveness of CTR combined with the advent of ambulatory care facilities has made CTR a predominantly outpatient procedure. In contrast to other reports, our study demonstrated a higher incidence of CTR within the United States in 2006 compared with 1996. Elderly women, in particular, with CTS were 3 times more likely to be treated surgically than other age groups. Further study is needed to better define factors influencing CTR indications. (J Hand Surg 2012;37A:1599-1605. Copyright (C) 2012 by the American. Society for Surgery of the Hand. All rights reserved.) Type of study/level of evidence Prognostic II.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available