Ultrasound-Guided Versus Landmark-Guided Local Corticosteroid Injection for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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 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). 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. (C) 2017 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine