Is Smoking Associated with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome? A Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Healthcare (Basel) Vol. 10; no. 10; p. 1988
• Main Authors: Lampainen, Kaisa, Hulkkonen, Sina, Ryhänen, Jorma, Curti, Stefania, Shiri, Rahman
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.10.2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Bias; Care and treatment; Carpal tunnel syndrome; Cohort analysis; Confounding (Statistics); Cross-sectional studies; Diabetes; Diagnosis; Health aspects; Hospitalization; lifestyle; Manual workers; median nerve; median neuropathy; Meta-analysis; Physiological aspects; Ratios; Risk factors; Smokers; Smoking; Systematic Review; tobacco; Finland
• ISSN: 2227-9032; 2227-9032
• DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10101988

To date, the role of smoking in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the association between smoking and CTS. The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, from inception until October 2021. Three reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was used, and heterogeneity across studies was examined using I2 statistic. A total of 31 (13 cross-sectional, 10 case-control, and 8 cohort) studies were qualified for meta-analysis. In a meta-analysis of cohort studies, the risk of CTS did not differ between current and never smokers (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.09, 95% CI 0.84–1.43), current and past/never smokers (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94–1.23), and past and never smokers (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.83–1.49). Furthermore, a meta-analysis of case control studies found no difference in the risk of CTS between current and never smokers (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.56–1.53), current and past/never smokers (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.51–2.36), and past and never smokers (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59–1.39). However, a meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies showed the associations of ever (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.08–1.72) and current smoking (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.11–2.09) with CTS. However, the association between ever smoking and CTS disappeared after limiting the meta-analysis to higher quality studies or after adjusting for publication bias. The association between current smoking and CTS also attenuated after limiting the meta-analysis to studies that confirmed CTS by a nerve conduction study or studies with low attrition bias. This meta-analysis does not support an association between smoking and CTS. The association between smoking and CTS observed in cross-sectional studies could be due to biases and/or confounding factors.