Login
Communauté Vinci
Extérieur
Si votre nom d'utilisateur ne se termine pas par @vinci.be ou @student.vinci.be, utilisez le formulaire ci-dessous pour accéder à votre compte de lecteur.
Titre : | Ultrasound-Guided Versus Landmark-Guided Local Corticosteroid Injection for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2018) |
Auteurs : | Arash Babaei-Ghazani ; Peyman Roomizadeh ; Bijan Forogh |
Type de document : | Article |
Dans : | Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Vol. 99, n° 4, 2018) |
Article en page(s) : | p. 766-775 |
Langues: | Anglais |
Descripteurs : |
HE Vinci Échographie ; Méta-analyse ; Rééducation et réadaptation ; Revue de la littérature ; Syndrome du canal carpien |
Mots-clés: | Carpal tunnel syndrome ; Conservative treatment ; Traitement conservateur ; Injections ; Meta-analysis ; Review ; Ultrasonography |
Résumé : |
Objective To 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 Sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science (from inception to February 1, 2017). Study Selection Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided injection with landmark-guided injection in patients with CTS were included. Data Extraction Two 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 Synthesis Overall, 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 methods in terms of fss ci to .05 p=".10)." there were also statistically differences improvements cmap snap>.99), DML (MD, .05; 95% CI, −.30 to .39; P=.80), or DSL (MD, .00; 95% CI, −.65 to .65; P>.99). Conclusions This 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. |
Disponible en ligne : | Oui |
En ligne : | https://login.ezproxy.vinci.be/login?url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/archives-of-physical-medicine-and-rehabilitation |