International Scholarly Research Notices

International Scholarly Research Notices / 2013 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2013 |Article ID 940615 | 7 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/940615

Treatment of Ganglion Cysts

Academic Editor: C. Mathoulin
Received08 Mar 2013
Accepted08 Apr 2013
Published28 May 2013

Abstract

Ganglion cysts are soft tissue swellings occurring most commonly in the hand or wrist. Apart from swelling, most cysts are asymptomatic. Other symptoms include pain, weakness, or paraesthesia. The two main concerns patients have are the cosmetic appearance of the cysts and the fear of future malignant growth. It has been shown that 58% of cysts will resolve spontaneously over time. Treatment can be either conservative or through surgical excision. This review concluded that nonsurgical treatment is largely ineffective in treating ganglion cysts. However, it advised to patients who do not surgical treatment but would like symptomatic relief. Compared to surgery, which has a lower recurrence rate but have a higher complication rate with longer recovery period. It has been shown that surgical interventions do not provide better symptomatic relief compared to conservative treatment. If symptomatic relief is the patient’s primary concern, a conservative approach is preferred, whilst surgical intervention will decrease the likelihood of recurrence.

1. Introduction

Ganglion cyst is the most common soft tissue swelling in hand and wrist. It occurs most commonly on the dorsal side of the wrist (70%), followed by volar side (20%) of wrist and tendon sheath of fingers. Most of the ganglion cysts are asymptomatic besides swelling. Most patients sought advice and treatment because of the cosmetic appearance or they were concerned that their ganglion was a malignant growth [1]. Treatment options include reassurance, nonsurgical means like aspiration with or without steroid injections or hyaluronidase and surgical excision. We review the treatment outcome of ganglion in the literature and compare their recurrence and complication rates.

2. Methods

Electronic databases of Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane libraries were searched with the key words “ganglion,” “conservative treatment,” “surgery” and “outcomes.” The inclusion criteria were (1) publication in English and (2) articles concerning the treatment of ganglion of hand and wrist. Recurrence rate, complications, and functional outcome were reviewed. References in review articles were screened for potentially relevant studies not yet identified.

3. Reassurance

Majority of patients with ganglion do not have symptoms besides swelling, while others may present with pain, weakness, or paresthesia. Barnes et al. reported in their review that only 19.5% had symptoms other than a mass [2]. Westbrook et al. also reported majority of patients sought advice and treatment because of the cosmetic appearance or they were concerned that their ganglion was a malignant growth, while only 26% consulted because of pain and 8% consulted altered sensation or restricted hand function [1].

Many may not opt for any treatment if they are reassured of the benign nature of the disease. Also, even for painful ganglions, they cause less pain compared to other common orthopaedic problems, like carpal tunnel syndrome and osteoarthritis, in terms of Mean Visual Analogue Pain Scores [3].

The spontaneous resolution rate of untreated ganglion ranged 40–58% (Table 1) [47]. Therefore reassurance can be the option if the patients do not want any intervention.


FUResolution rate

Carp and Stout 19283 years7/12 (58%)
McEvedy 1962 [4]10 years10/21 (48%)
Zachariae and Vibe-Hansen 1973 [5]6 years40/101 (40%)
Dias and Buch 2003 [6]63 months 20/38 (53%)
Dias et al. 2007 [7]70 months23/55 (42%)

4. Conservative Treatment

4.1. Aspiration

Aspiration alone is one of the simplest ways to treat ganglion. However, it has high recurrence rates. Most of the studies showed more than half of ganglion treated with aspiration alone will recur (Table 2) [625]. Many methods have been tried in order to increase the efficacy. Zubowicz and Ishii reported a recurrence rate of 15% by repeated aspiration up to three times. However, they also noticed the successful rate decreased with those who needed repeated aspiration [10]. Multiple puncture of ganglion wall has not shown to improve the result of simple ganglion aspiration [12].


FUFailure rate*

Aspiration

Nield and Evans 1986 [8]1 year20/34 (59%)
Esteban et al. 1986 [9]27 months (3–71)6/17 (35%)
Zubowicz and Ishii 1987 [10]1 year–20 months7/47 (15%)
Varley et al. 1997 [11]48 months (26–89)28/42 (67%)
Stephen et al. 1999 [12]1 year35/51 (69%)

Aspiration with or without steroid

Dias and Buch 2003 [6]5 years18/38 (47%)
Dias et al. 2007 [7]70 months45/78 (58%)

Steroid

Wright et al. 1994 [13]5 years (2–11 years)20/24 (83%)
Breidahl and Adler 1996 [14]12 months6/10 (60%)
Paul and Sochart 1997 [15]2 years28/35 (80%)
Varley et al. 1997 [11]46 months (26–89)29/43 (67%)

Sclerotherapy

Mackie et al. 1984 [16]3 months15/16 (94%)Sclerosant (sodium tetradecyl disulphate)
Dogo et al. 2003 [17]24–36 months1/29 (3.4%)Sclerosant (hypertonic saline)
Gümüş 2009 [18]17 months (6–29)1/17 (5.9%)Transcutaneous electrocauterization

Hyaluronidase

Otu 1992 [19]6 months17/349 (5%)
Paul and Sochart 1997 [15]2 years18/35 (51%)
Akkerhuis et al. 2002 [20]1 year33/43 (77%)

Aspiration + multiple puncture

Richman et al. 1987 [21]22 months32/45 (71%)
Korman et al. 1992 [22]1 year18/36 (50%)
Stephen et al. 1999 [12]1 year32/41 (78%)

Aspiration + multiple puncture + immobilization

Richman et al. 1987 [21]22 months24/42 (57%)
Korman et al. 1992 [22]1 year16/33 (48%)

Aspiration + steroid + immobilization

Limpaphayom and Wilairatana 2004 [23]6 months8/13 (62%)

Thread technique

Gang and Makhlouf 1988 [24]Min. 6 months3/62 (4.8%)
Singhal et al. 2005 [25]2 years13/26 (50%)

*Failure rate = recurrence + in complete resolution.

4.2. Steroid

Becker suggested the use of steroid injection in treating ganglion, with 87% resolution rate, based on the initial theory that chronic inflammatory may take part in the pathogenesis of ganglion. Subsequent studies showed variable successful rate. Varley et al. conducted a randomized controlled trial to aspiration with or without steroid and concluded that additional injection of steroid is of no benefit and subcutaneous fat atrophy and skin depigmentation can be the potential complications [11].

4.3. Sclerotherapy

Sclerotherapy has been proposed to treat ganglion. Sclerosant was injected into ganglion sac to damage the intimal lining and cause fibrosis to reduce the recurrence rate. Initial study showed high successful rate ranging 78–100%. Mackie et al., however, confirmed ganglion had no intimal lining by histological studies and reported a failure rate as high as 94%. Since there is communication between ganglion and synovial joint, sclerosant might pass from ganglion to the joint and tendon and cause damage to them [16]. Since the publication of these reports, the use of sclerotherapy had declined. New technique had been developed with the aim of causing ganglion sclerosis without the risk of damage to the joints. Gümüş used electrocautery to cause ganglion sclerosis and showed favorite results. This technique had not been widely adopted [18].

4.4. Hyaluronidase

The content of ganglion may be too vigorous to be drawn, and thus aspiration may not be complete. Some advocated the use of hyaluronidase, which depolymerizes the hyaluronic acid present in ganglion content. Otu reported a 95% cure rate after a follow-up period of 6 months [19]. Paul and Sochart also showed that the use of hyaluronidase in conjunction with steroid has resulted in significantly higher resolution rate compared to the use of steroid alone, but only 49% of their patients treated by hyaluronidase and steroid had complete resolution, compared to 20% in those treated with steroid [15]. Akkerhuis et al., however, reported a recurrence rate of 77%, for treatment of ganglion with hyaluronidase [20]. Thus, the successful rate had been variable, and hyaluronidase may cause allergic reaction.

4.5. Immobilization

Immobilization following aspiration had showed conflicting results. Richman et al. showed that 3-week immobilization after aspiration and multiple puncture had a significantly higher successful rate for dorsal carpal ganglion, but the result for palmar ganglion was inconclusive [21]. On the other hand, Korman et al. concluded that immobilization did not significantly improve the successful treatment of ganglions over perforation and aspiration alone and had the potential adverse effects of inconvenience, economic repercussions, and stiffness [22].

4.6. Threat Technique

Gang and Makhlouf introduce the thread technique, by which two sutures were passed through the ganglion at right angles to each other, and each was tied in a loop. The contents of ganglion were expelled by massage at interval. They reported a recurrence rate of 4.8%. However, 11% of the patients had positive culture swabs [24]. Singhal et al. described a similar technique, but the complete resolution rate was only 50% [25].

Taking into account that nearly half of the ganglion would resolve spontaneously, with such a high failure rate, nonsurgical treatment of ganglion was generally ineffective. However, the complications were considered less (Table 3) [625]. Some reported zero percent of complication rates, while others reported minor complications like transient pain and swelling. Therefore, nonsurgical treatment can be considered to be an alternative way for symptomatic relief if the patients do not want surgery.


Method Complication rateComplications

Esteban et al. 1986 [9]Aspiration 0
Dias and Buch 2003 [6]Aspiration/steroid5%Scar tender
Dias et al. 2007 [7]Aspiration/steroid2/78 (2.56%)
Paul and Sochart 1997 [15]Steroid 4/35 (11%)Superficial infection, mild localized rash, and small area of depigmentation
Dogo et al. 2003 [17]Hypertonic saline050% swelling, 6/29 severe pain
Gümüş 2009 [18]Transcutaneous electrocauterization08 cases of transient swelling and pain
Paul and Sochart 1997 [15]Hyaluronidase 1/35 (2.9%)Superficial infection
Richman et al. 1987 [21]Multiple puncture0
Richman et al. 1987 [21]Immobilization0
Limpaphayom and Wilairatana 2004 [23]Immobilization0
Gang and Makhlouf 1988 [24]Thread technique7/62 (11%)Positive culture swab
Singhal et al. 2005 [25]Thread technique3/26 (12%)Localized rash, mild restriction

Another advantage of conservative treatment is that aspiration of ganglion contents confirms a benign diagnosis and allays the patients’ fear and desire for further treatment.

5. Surgery

In 1976, Angelides and Wallace [26] introduced the techniques of excising the whole ganglion including the cyst, its attachments to the scapholunate ligament, and the involved segment of joint capsule, to reduce the recurrence rate. It is now considered to be the most effective technique.

5.1. Recurrence

According to the study conducted by Angelides and Wallace, the recurrence rate can be as low as 1%. However, subsequent recurrence rate of surgical excision reported by the literatures was variable (Table 4) [6, 7, 13, 20, 23, 2629, 3147], with the range of 0–31.2%. There were only two randomized controlled trials comparing the recurrence rate of conservative treatment to surgery. Limpaphayom and Wilairatana compared aspiration, steroid injection, and immobilization with surgery, while Akkerhuis et al. compared hyaluronidase with surgery. Both of them reported surgery had a lower recurrence rate [20, 23].


FURecurrence rate

Open excision

Angelides and Wallace 1976 [26]Dorsal 9 months–25 years3/346 (0.87%)
Janzon and Niechajev 1981 [27]5 years21/144 (15%)
Clay and Clement 1988 [28]Dorsal 28 months (12–74 months)2/51 (3.9%)
Watson et al. 1989 [29, 30] Dorsal and palmar16 years0/10 (0%)
Jacobs and Govaers 1990 [31]Palmar 70 months (3–220)20/71 (28%)
Wright et al. 1994 [13]Palmar 5 years (2–11 years)14/72 (19%)
Filan and Herbert 1996 [32]Recurrent dorsal14 months (12–22)0/7 (0%)
Hwang et al. 1999 [33]Dorsal 1/19 (5.3%)
Faithfull and Seeto 2000 [34]Dorsal and palmar65 months (6–133)6/59 (10%)
Gündeş et al. 2000 [35]24 dorsal27 months (6–48)8.3%
16 volar31.2%
Akkerhuis et al. 2002 [20]Wrist and foot12 months11/46 (24%)
Limpaphayom and Wilairatana 2004 [23]Dorsal 6 months2/11 (18%)
Kang et al. 2008 [36]Dorsal 12 months2/23 (8.7%)
Rocchi et al. 2008 [37]Palmar 24 months1/25 (4%)

Arthroscopy + open

Dias and Buch 2003 [6]Palmar 5 years33/79 (42%)
Dias et al. 2007 [7]Dorsal 70 months40/103 (39%)

Arthroscopic resection

Osterman and Raphael 1995 [38]Dorsal 0/18 (0%)
Luchetti et al. 2000 [39]Dorsal 16 months2/34 (5.9%)
Ho et al. 2001 [40]Dorsal 25 months (6–44)5/19 (26%)
Palmar 16.4 months (10–25)0/5 (0%)
Nishikawa et al. 2001 [41]Dorsal 20 months2/37 (5.4%)
Shih et al. 2002 [42]Dorsal26.8 months (15–37)0/32 (0%)
Rizzo et al. 2004 [43]Dorsal47.8 months (28–97)2/41 (4.9%)
Mathoulin et al. 2004 [44]Dorsal34 months (12–46)4/96 (4.2%)
Palmar26 months (12–39)0/32 (0%)
Rocchi et al. 2006 [45]Dorsal and palmar15 months (3–26)2/47 (4.3%)
Kang et al. 2008 [36]Dorsal12 months 2/28 (7.1%)
Rocchi et al. 2008 [37]Palmar24 months3/25 (12%)
Edwards and Johansen 2009 [46]DorsalMin. 24 months0/55 (0%)
Chen et al. 2010 [47]Dorsal and palmar15.3 months1/15 (6.7%)

5.2. Complications

Complications for surgical excision included wound infection, neuroma formation, hypertrophic scar, median nerve, and radial artery damage, with complication rate ranging 0–56% (Table 5) [6, 7, 13, 20, 23, 2629, 3147]. In Dias and Buch’s cohort study, surgery (20%) had a higher complication rate compared with aspiration (5%) or reassurance [6].


Complication rate

Open excision

Angelides and Wallace 1976 [26]Dorsal0/346 (0%)1.2% had 0–10 degree loss of volar flexion
Janzon and Niechajev 1981 [27]Not reported
Clay and Clement 1988 [28]Dorsal0/51 (0%)1 had evidence of scapholunate dissociation
Watson et al. 1989 [29, 30]Dorsal and palmarNot reported
Jacobs and Govaers 1990 [31]Palmar20/71 (28%)20 had unsatisfactory scar (2 had evidence of neuroma), 20 had evidence of median nerve damage
Wright et al. 1994 [13]Palmar6/72 (8.3)superficial infection, tendinitis, and pain dystrophy
Filan and Herbert 1996 [32]Recurrent dorsalNot reported
Hwang et al. 1999 [33]Dorsal3/19 (16%)1 suture abscess, 1 loss of wrist flexion of 45 degree, and 1 transient neuropraxia
Faithfull and Seeto 2000 [34]Dorsal and palmarNot reported
Gündeş et al. 2000 [35]24 dorsal12.5%1 had evidence of radial nerve injuries
16 volar56%2 had evidence of median nerve injuries, 2 had radial artery injuries
Akkerhuiset al. 2002 [20]Wrist and footNot reported
Limpaphayom and Wilairatana 2004 [23]Dorsal 0/11 (0%)
Kang et al. 2008 [36]Dorsal0/23 (0%)
Rocchi et al. 2008 [37]Palmar7/25 (28%)4 radial artery injuries, 2 partial stiffness of the wrist, and 1 neuropraxia

Arthroscopy + open

Dias and Buch 2003 [6]Palmar20%
Dias et al. 2007 [7]Dorsal8/103 (7.8%)3 numbness, 4 scar tender, and 1 keloid

Arthroscopic resection

Osterman and Raphael 1995 [38]Dorsal0/18 (0%)
Luchetti et al. 2000 [39]Dorsal0/34 (0%)
Ho et al. 2001 [40]Dorsal0/19 (0%)
Palmar0/5 (0%)
Nishikawa et al. 2001 [41]Dorsal 0/37 (0%)
Shih et al. 2002 [42]DorsalNot reported
Rizzo et al. 2004 [43]Dorsal10/47 (21%)10 postoperative stiffness
Mathoulin et al. 2004 [44]Dorsal0/96 (0%)
Palmar1/32 (3.1%)1 hematoma
Rocchi et al. 2006 [45]Dorsal and palmar4/47 (8.5%)1 radial artery injury, 1 haematoma, and 2 axonotmesis
Kang et al. 2008 [36]Dorsal1/41 (2.1%)1 neuropraxia
Rocchi et al. 2008 [37]Palmar2/25 (8%)1 neuropraxia, 1 injury to a branch of the radial artery
Edwards and Johansen 2009 [46]Dorsal3/55 (5.5%)3 extensor tenosynovitis
Chen et al. 2010 [47]Dorsal and palmar1/15 (6.7%)1 case of transient paresthesia

Scapholunate instability has been reported after dorsal wrist ganglion excision. Some suggested periscaphoid ligamentous injury was a cause of ganglion rather than a complication of surgery [30, 49]. Kivett et al. examined 61 postganglionectomy patients by physical examination and radiography and concluded that ganglion excision did not de-stabilise the wrist [50].

5.3. Mobility and Other Outcomes

Surgery may not result in favourable outcomes. Angelides et al. reported 1.2% of patients had 0–10 degree loss of volar flexion after surgery, although this had no functional significant [26]. Sanders studied nine patients with occult dorsal ganglion. One out of eight who attended followup had residual pain after surgery, while three out of eight had limited motion [48]. Clay and Clement reported that while surgery resulted in improvement of pain in 79%, it worsen the pain in 8% of patients. 17% of patients complained of weakened grip with 2% demonstrating loss of grip strength of more than 20% compared with opposite hand [28]. Residual pain, limited range of motion, and weaken grip were also reported in other studies (Table 6).


Residual painLimited ROMReduced grip powerLoss of function

Sanders 1985 [48]13%38%00
Clay and Clement 1988 [28]Improved in 79%, worsen in 8%17%00
Wright et al. 1994 [13]8.3%2.8%17%0
Faithfull and Seeto 2000 [34]14%0010%
Dias and Buch 2003 [6]16%10%23%0
Dias et al. 2007 [7]27%15%34%0

Dias conducted two prospective cohort comparing the outcomes of dorsal and palmar ganglions, respectively, treated by surgery with those treated by reassurance and aspiration. No significant difference was found in persistent symptoms and symptom relief among three groups. However, those treated with surgery had significantly higher recovery times, with averaged 14.1 days and 10.9 days off work for palmar and dorsal wrist ganglion excision, respectively, compared to averaged 3.5 days and 3.2 days for aspiration of palmar and dorsal wrist ganglion [5, 6] (Table 7).


Mean recovery timeTime off work

Open

Janzon and Niechajev 1981 [27] Majority 10–20 days
Jacobs and Govaers 1990 [31]Majority 7–18 days (median 2.5 weeks)
Rocchi et al. 2008 [37]15 days23 days

Open + arthroscopy

Dias and Buch 2003 [6]14.1 days
Dias et al. 2007 [7]10.9 days

Arthroscopy

Luchetti et al. 2000 [39]15 days
Nishikawa et al. 2001 [41]16 days (7–56)
Rocchi et al. 2008 [37]6 days10 days

5.4. Arthroscopic Excision

In 1995, Osterman and Raphael described a technique of arthroscopic excision of dorsal wrist ganglia. Arthroscopic resection has the potential advantages of minimizing the surgical scar and permits evaluation of any intra-articular pathologic condition of either midcarpal or radiocarpal joints [38].

Majority of initial reports on recurrence rate look more favourable than open excision (Tables 4 and 5). However, a prospective, randomized study in 2008 showed rates of recurrence with arthroscopic dorsal ganglion excision (3/28) are comparable with and not superior to those of open excision (2/23). Additional long-term comparative studies are needed to accurately differentiate the efficacy of open and arthroscopic techniques [36].

6. Conclusion

Majority of patients with ganglion do not have symptoms. Given that the spontaneous resolution rate of ganglion can be as high as 58%. Reassurance and observation can be the option if the patients are asymptomatic or do not want any intervention. Nonsurgical treatments of ganglion including aspiration, steroid injection sclerotherapy, and hyaluronidase were generally ineffective. However, since they had lower complication rates, they can be used for symptomatic relief if the patients do not want surgery. Surgery had a lower recurrence rate than conservative treatment. However it has higher rates of complication and longer recovery period, and the rate of symptomatic relief may not be higher than other treatments.

References

  1. A. P. Westbrook, A. B. Stephen, J. Oni, and T. R. C. Davis, “Ganglia: the patient's perception,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 566–567, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. W. E. Barnes, R. D. Larsen, and J. L. Posch, “Review of ganglia of the hand and wrist with analysis of surgical treatment,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 34, pp. 570–578, 1964. View at: Google Scholar
  3. P. J. Tomlinson and J. Field, “Morbidity of hand and wrist ganglia,” Hand Surgery, vol. 11, no. 1-2, pp. 5–8, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  4. B. V. McEvedy, “Simple ganglia,” The British Journal of Surgery, vol. 49, no. 218, pp. 585–594, 1962. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. L. Zachariae and H. Vibe-Hansen, “Ganglia. Recurrence rate elucidated by a follow up of 347 operated cases,” Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica, vol. 139, no. 7, pp. 625–628, 1973. View at: Google Scholar
  6. J. J. Dias and K. Buch, “Palmar wrist ganglion: does intervention improve outcome: a prospective study of the natural history and patient-reported treatment outcomes,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 172–176, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. J. J. Dias, V. Dhukaram, and P. Kumar, “The natural history of untreated dorsal wrist ganglia and patient reported outcome 6 years after intervention,” Journal of Hand Surgery: European Volume, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 502–508, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. D. V. Nield and D. M. Evans, “Aspiration of ganglia,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 264, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  9. J. M. Esteban, Y. C. Oertel, M. Mendoza, and S. M. Knoll, “Fine needle aspiration in the treatment of ganglion cysts,” Southern Medical Journal, vol. 79, no. 6, pp. 691–693, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  10. V. N. Zubowicz and C. H. Ishii, “Management of ganglion cysts of the hand by simple aspiration,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 618–620, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  11. G. W. Varley, M. Needoff, T. R. C. Davis, and N. R. Clay, “Conservative management of wrist ganglia: aspiration versus steroid infiltration,” Journal of Hand Surgery: European Volume, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 636–637, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. A. B. Stephen, A. R. Lyons, and T. R. C. Davis, “A prospective study of two conservative treatments for ganglia of the wrist,” Journal of Hand Surgery: European Volume, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 104–105, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. T. W. Wright, W. P. Cooney, and D. M. Ilstrup, “Anterior wrist ganglion,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 954–958, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  14. W. H. Breidahl and R. S. Adler, “Ultrasound-guided injection of ganglia with coricosteroids,” Skeletal Radiology, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 635–638, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. A. S. Paul and D. H. Sochart, “Improving the results of ganglion aspiration by the use of hyaluronidase,” Journal of Hand Surgery: European Volume, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 219–221, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. I. G. Mackie, C. B. Howard, and P. Wilkins, “The dangers of sclerotherapy in the treatment of ganglia,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 181–184, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  17. D. Dogo, A. W. Hassan, and U. Babayo, “Treatment of ganglion using hypertonic saline as sclerosant,” West African Journal of Medicine, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 13–14, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  18. N. Gümüş, “A new sclerotherapy technique for the wrist ganglion: transcutaneous electrocauterization,” Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 42–44, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. A. A. Otu, “Wrist and hand ganglion treatment with hyaluronidase injection and fine needle aspiration: a tropical African perspective,” Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 405–407, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  20. M. J. O. Akkerhuis, M. van der Heijden, and P. R. G. Brink, “Hyaluronidase versus surgical excision of ganglia: a prospective, randomized clinical trial,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 256–258, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. J. A. Richman, R. H. Gelberman, W. D. Engber, P. B. Salamon, and D. J. Bean, “Ganglions of the wrist and digits: results of treatment by aspiration and cyst wall puncture,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1041–1043, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  22. J. Korman, R. Pearl, and V. R. Hentz, “Efficacy of immobilization following aspiration of carpal and digital ganglions,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1097–1099, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  23. N. Limpaphayom and V. Wilairatana, “Randomized controlled trial between surgery and aspiration combined with methylprednisolone acetate injection plus wrist immobilization in the treatment of dorsal carpal ganglion,” Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, vol. 87, no. 12, pp. 1513–1517, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  24. R. K. Gang and S. Makhlouf, “Treatment of ganglia by a thread technique,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 184–186, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  25. R. Singhal, N. Angmo, S. Gupta, V. Kumar, and A. Mehtani, “Ganglion cysts of the wrist: a prospective study of a simple outpatient management,” Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 528–534, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  26. A. C. Angelides and P. F. Wallace, “The dorsal ganglion of the wrist: Its pathogenesis gross and microscopic anatomy, and surgical treatment,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 228–235, 1976. View at: Google Scholar
  27. L. Janzon and I. A. Niechajev, “Wrist ganglia. Incidence and recurrence rate after operation,” Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 53–56, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  28. N. R. Clay and D. A. Clement, “The treatment of dorsal wrist ganglia by radical excision,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 187–191, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  29. H. K. Watson, W. D. Rogers, and D. Ashmead IV, “Reevaluation of the cause of the wrist ganglion,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 812–817, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  30. H. K. Watson, W. D. Rogers, and D. Ashmead IV, “Reevaluation of the cause of the wrist ganglion,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 812–817, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  31. L. G. H. Jacobs and K. J. M. Govaers, “The volar wrist ganglion: just a simple cyst?” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 342–346, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. S. L. Filan and T. J. Herbert, “Recurrent dorsal wrist ganglion: aetiology and treatment,” Hand Surgery, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7–9, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. J. J. Hwang, C. A. Goldfarb, R. H. Gelberman, and M. I. Boyer, “The effect of dorsal carpal ganglion excision on the scaphoid shift test,” Journal of Hand Surgery: European Volume, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 106–108, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. D. K. Faithfull and B. G. Seeto, “The simple wrist ganglion—more than a minor surgical procedure?” Hand Surgery, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 139–143, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  35. H. Gündeş, Y. Cirpici, A. Sarlak, and S. Müezzinoglu, “Prognosis of wrist ganglion operations,” Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 363–367, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  36. L. Kang, E. Akelman, and A. P. C. Weiss, “Arthroscopic versus open dorsal ganglion excision: a prospective, randomized comparison of rates of recurrence and of residual pain,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 471–475, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. L. Rocchi, A. Canal, F. Fanfani, and F. Catalano, “Articular ganglia of the volar aspect of the wrist: arthroscopic resection compared with open excision. A prospective randomised study,” Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 253–259, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. A. L. Osterman and J. Raphael, “Arthroscopic resection of dorsal ganglion of the wrist,” Hand Clinics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 7–12, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  39. R. Luchetti, A. Badia, M. Alfarano, J. Orbay, I. Indriago, and B. Mustapha, “Arthroscopic resection of dorsal wrist ganglia and treatment of recurrences,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 38–40, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. P. C. Ho, J. Griffiths, W. N. Lo, C. H. Yen, and L. K. Hung, “Current treatment of ganglion of the wrist,” Hand Surgery, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 49–58, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  41. S. Nishikawa, S. Toh, H. Miura, K. Arai, and T. Irie, “Arthroscopic diagnosis and treatment of dorsal wrist ganglion,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 547–549, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. J. T. Shih, S. T. Hung, H. M. Lee, and C. M. Tan, “Dorsal ganglion of the wrist: results of treatment by arthroscopic resection,” Hand Surgery, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  43. M. Rizzo, R. A. Berger, S. P. Steinmann, and A. T. Bishop, “Arthroscopic resection in the management of dorsal wrist ganglions: results with a minimum 2-year follow-up period,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 59–62, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. C. Mathoulin, A. Hoyos, and J. Pelaez, “Arthroscopic resection of wrist ganglia,” Hand Surgery, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 159–164, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  45. L. Rocchi, A. Canal, J. Pelaez, F. Fanfani, and F. Catalano, “Results and complications in dorsal and volar wrist ganglia arthroscopic resection,” Hand Surgery, vol. 11, no. 1-2, pp. 21–26, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  46. S. G. Edwards and J. A. Johansen, “Prospective outcomes and associations of wrist ganglion cysts resected arthroscopically,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 395–400, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. A. C. Y. Chen, W. C. Lee, K. Y. Hsu, Y. S. Chan, L. J. Yuan, and C. H. Chang, “Arthroscopic ganglionectomy through an intrafocal cystic portal for wrist ganglia,” Arthroscopy, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 617–622, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. W. E. Sanders, “The occult dorsal carpal ganglion,” Journal of Hand Surgery, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 257–260, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  49. K. H. Duncan and R. C. Lewis, “Scapholunate instability following ganglion cyst excision. A case report,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 228, pp. 250–253, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  50. W. F. Kivett, F. M. Wood, G. E. Rauscher, and N. A. Taschler, “Does ganglionectomy destabilize the wrist over the long term?” Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 466–468, 1996. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2013 Matthew Suen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

32053 Views | 1449 Downloads | 10 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder