Background: Pillar pain may develop after carpal tunnel release surgery (CTRS).This prospective double-blinded randomized trial investigated the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in pillar pain relief and hand function improvement. Methods: The sample consisted of 60 patients with post-CTRS pillar pain, randomized into two groups. The ESWT group (experimental) received three sessions of ESWT, while the control group received three sessions of sham ESWT, one session per week. Participants were evaluated before treatment, and three weeks, three months, and six months after treatment. The pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Hand functions were assessed using the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire (MHQ). Results: The ESWT group showed significant improvement in VAS and MHQ scores after treatment at all time points compared to the control group (P < 0.001). Before treatment, the ESWT and control groups had a VAS score of 6.8 ± 1.3 and 6.7 ± 1.0, respectively. Three weeks after treatment, they had a VAS score of 2.8 ± 1.1 and 6.1 ± 1.0, respectively. Six months after treatment, the VAS score was reduced to 1.9 ± 0.9 and 5.1 ± 1.0, respectively. The ESWT group had a MHQ score of 54.4 ± 7.7 before treatment and 73.3 ± 6.8 six months after. The control group had a MHQ score of 54.2 ± 7.1 before treatment and 57.8 ± 4.4 six months after. Conclusions ESWT is an effective and a safe non-invasive treatment option for pain management and hand functionality in pillar pain.

Background: Pillar pain may develop after carpal tunnel release surgery (CTRS).This prospective double-blinded randomized trial investigated the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in pillar pain relief and hand function improvement. Methods: The sample consisted of 60 patients with post-CTRS pillar pain, randomized into two groups. The ESWT group (experimental) received three sessions of ESWT, while the control group received three sessions of sham ESWT, one session per week. Participants were evaluated before treatment, and three weeks, three months, and six months after treatment. The pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Hand functions were assessed using the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire (MHQ). Results: The ESWT group showed significant improvement in VAS and MHQ scores after treatment at all time points compared to the control group (P < 0.001). Before treatment, the ESWT and control groups had a VAS score of 6.8 ± 1.3 and 6.7 ± 1.0, respectively. Three weeks after treatment, they had a VAS score of 2.8 ± 1.1 and 6.1 ± 1.0, respectively. Six months after treatment, the VAS score was reduced to 1.9 ± 0.9 and 5.1 ± 1.0, respectively. The ESWT group had a MHQ score of 54.4 ± 7.7 before treatment and 73.3 ± 6.8 six months after. The control group had a MHQ score of 54.2 ± 7.1 before treatment and 57.8 ± 4.4 six months after. Conclusions ESWT is an effective and a safe non-invasive treatment option for pain management and hand functionality in pillar pain.

Objective: Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular nerve block (IB) has become a well-established method in several outpatient procedures; however, its use in emergency departments (EDs) remains limited. The aim of this study was to compare procedural sedation and anlagesia (PSA) and IB in the pain management for patients who underwent forearm fracture reduction in the ED. Methods: This prospective randomized study included 60 patients aged 18 to 65 years, who visited the ED with forearm fractures. They were randomly divided into two groups: Group PSA (n=30) and Group IB (n=30). The pain scores of patients were evaluated before and during the procedure with the visual analog scale. Complications and patient and operator satisfaction levels were recorded. Results: There was no difference between the two groups in terms of demographic characteristics. The median (interquartile range) pain scores observed during the procedures were significantly higher in Group PSA than in Group IB (4 [4–6] vs. 2 [0–2], respectively; P<0.001). Patient and operator satisfaction levels were significantly higher in Group IB (P<0.001). Oxygen desaturation was statistically higher in Group PSA than in Group IB (40.00% vs. 3.33%, respectively; P=0.002). Conclusion IB was an effective alternative for reducing pain and increasing patient satisfaction in ED patients undergoing forearm fracture reduction.