Exercise and mobilisation interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome

Abstract

Non-surgical treatment, including exercises and mobilisation, has been offered to people experiencing mild to moderate symptoms arising from carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However, the effectiveness and duration of benefit from exercises and mobilisation for this condition remain unknown. To review the efficacy and safety of exercise and mobilisation interventions compared with no treatment, a placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS. We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialised Register (10 January 2012), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2012), CINAHL Plus (January 1937 to January 2012), and AMED (January 1985 to January 2012). Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing exercise or mobilisation interventions with no treatment, placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS. Two review authors independently assessed searches and selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for primary and secondary outcomes of the review. We collected data on adverse events from included studies. Sixteen studies randomising 741 participants with CTS were included in the review. Two compared a mobilisation regimen to a no treatment control, three compared one mobilisation intervention (for example carpal bone mobilisation) to another (for example soft tissue mobilisation), nine compared nerve mobilisation delivered as part of a multi-component intervention to another non-surgical intervention (for example splint or therapeutic ultrasound), and three compared a mobilisation intervention other than nerve mobilisation (for example yoga or chiropractic treatment) to another non-surgical intervention. The risk of bias of the included studies was low in some studies and unclear or high in other studies, with only three explicitly reporting that the allocation sequence was concealed, and four reporting blinding of participants. The studies were heterogeneous in terms of the interventions delivered, outcomes measured and timing of outcome assessment, therefore, we were unable to pool results across studies. Only four studies reported the primary outcome of interest, short-term overall improvement (any measure in which patients indicate the intensity of their complaints compared to baseline, for example, global rating of improvement, satisfaction with treatment, within three months post-treatment). However, of these, only three fully reported outcome data sufficient for inclusion in the review. One very low quality trial with 14 participants found that all participants receiving either neurodynamic mobilisation or carpal bone mobilisation and none in the no treatment group reported overall improvement (RR 15.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 220.92), though the precision of this effect estimate is very low. One low quality trial with 22 participants found that the chance of being 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with treatment was 24% higher for participants receiving instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilisation compared to standard soft tissue mobilisation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.75), though participants were not blinded and it was unclear if the allocation sequence was concealed.