Comparison of Conventional Versus Transverse Mini-Incision Technique for Carpal Tunnel Release

Comparison of Conventional Versus Transverse Mini-Incision Technique for Carpal Tunnel Release: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT07018011

Enrollment

Registered

2025-06-12

Start date

2022-04-01

Completion date

2023-03-31

Last updated

2025-06-12

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Brief summary

This study aimed at to fill the gaps by comparing the surgical outcomes of the conventional versus transverse mini-incision technique for carpal tunnel syndrome in terms of pain and functional outcomes.

Detailed description

The study findings would be helpful in determining the superiority of one surgical technique over the other for carpal tunnel release so that a quicker return to normal activities and work for those patients could be achieved, causing less pain and scarring. Due to frequent healthcare visits, quality of life can also be improved along with a decrease in morbidity.

Interventions

PROCEDUREConventional open CTR

Conventional open CTR involved making a longitudinal incision in the wrist, typically along the median palmar crease, to access and release the transverse carpal ligament.

PROCEDURETransverse mini-incision technique

Mini-incision CTR involved a smaller incision than traditional CTR procedures, aiming to minimize scarring and improve recovery time.

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

18 Years to 70 Years

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* Any genders * Aged between 18 and 70 years * Presenting with symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome for at least 3 months duration, and having a VAS score \> 4.

Exclusion criteria

* Patients with wrists with thenar atrophy * Those who had previous CTR surgery * Local injection for CTS * Pregnant females * Patients suffering from inflammatory arthropathy * Polyneuropathy

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Pain severity	9 months	A score percentage of 0-40 on the visual analog scale was graded as good, 50-60 as fair, and 70-100 as poor
Functional outcome	9 months	On functional severity scale, a score percentage of 20-45% was graded as good, 46-60% was graded as fair, and 61-100% was graded as poor.

Countries

Pakistan

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026