Comparison of three different incision techniques in A1 pulley release on scar tissue formation and postoperative rehabilitation

Single-Portal Antegrade Endoscopic Trigger Finger Release: Cadaveric and Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to examine the relationship between anatomical surface landmarks in fresh frozen cadavers as related to in vivo endoscopic trigger finger release (ETFR) and present clinical outcomes after a single-portal antegrade ETFR technique.

METHODS

Endoscopic trigger finger release was performed on 40 cadaveric digits. Each digit was dissected and the following measurements were recorded: distance from palmar digital crease and A1 pulley, length of the A1 pulley, percentage of A1 pulley released, and injury to vulnerable anatomy. A retrospective chart review was performed on 48 patients (62 digits) treated with ETFR. Outcome measures included grip and pinch strength, range of motion, Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaires, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores.

RESULTS

Release of the A1 pulley was achieved in 33 of the 40 cadaveric digits (83%) with an A2 pulley laceration rate of 25%. No flexor tendon or neurovascular injuries occurred. Gross grasp, lateral pinch, 3-jaw chuck, and precision pinch strength had 85%, 90%, 82%, and 90% recovery, respectively. At the final follow-up, average metacarpophalangeal joint, proximal interphalangeal joint, and distal interphalangeal joint range of motion were within the normal limits. Mean VAS scores decreased from 5.7 preoperatively to 1.0 postoperatively and mean DASH score at the final follow-up was 4.8.

CONCLUSIONS

With the use of anatomical surface landmarks, ETFR may be performed in an efficient and reproducible manner. Patients treated with ETFR had low complication rates, good functional recovery, and improved pain at short-term follow-up. Further study of long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of ETFR is warranted.

Incision techniques for trigger thumb release: a comparison of outcomes of four types of skin incision

Although trigger thumb release is commonly performed, there is no consensus on the optimal skin incision. This study aimed to compare outcomes of four incision techniques, including V-shaped, oblique, transverse and longitudinal incisions. Outcomes included the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, satisfaction with the treatment and postoperative complications. The results of 875 patients who underwent trigger thumb release were assessed. All groups demonstrated improvement in self-reported hand function (range of 10-14 points), pain (25-27 points) and aesthetics (4-7 points) from baseline to 3 months postoperatively with no differences between incision techniques. Of the patients, 76% reported good or excellent satisfaction with the outcome of treatment. Satisfaction and complication rates of the different incision techniques were similar. These findings imply that there is no clear benefit of one type of incision over another for trigger thumb release, suggesting that surgeons may use the technique of their preference.Level of evidence: III.

Reporting of scar outcomes in the hand and wrist; a state-of-the-art literature review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this literature review was to synthesise and report current practice in evaluation and reporting of scar outcomes in hand and wrist clinical research.

METHODS

A systematic search from inception to 2022 was conducted using three electronic databases. English language randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies reporting standardised scar outcome measures and/or scar symptoms, appearance, impairment, function, or mental health outcomes in patients with hand and wrist scars were included. Two independent reviewers determined study eligibility and performed data extraction of a priori identified scar outcome domains. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and identification of discordance in taxonomy.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies were included. Elective surgery cohorts were the most frequently included clinical population (n = 28; 47%) followed by burns (n = 16; 27%). Six different standardised scar outcome measures were reported by 25% of studies however only 7% of studies utilised a patient-reported measure. Scar symptoms were the most frequently reported outcome domain (81%); but taxonomy was incongruous, constructs lacked working definitions required for generalisability and outcome measurement was variable and unreported. Nineteen different measures of scar appearance and structure were reported by 30 (51%) of studies however only nine (23%) were patient-reported. Seven different hand function PROMs were reported by 25 (43%) studies. Person-centred domains including scar acceptability (12%), mental health impact (5%), and social participation (4%) were rarely reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that evaluation and reporting of hand and wrist scar outcomes is not standardised, assessment methods and measures are under-reported and there is discordance in taxonomy. Evaluation is not person-centred, rather it is dependent on clinician assessment. Domains including scar acceptability, mental health, and social participation are rarely addressed. A stakeholder consensus derived hand and wrist scar core outcome measurement set will promote standardisation and underpin improvements in clinical research quality, transparency, and rigour.

Complications and Functional Outcomes following Trigger Finger Release: A Cohort Study of 1879 Patients

BACKGROUND

Although trigger finger release is considered a safe procedure, large cohort studies reporting consistent complication rates and functional outcomes are scarce. Further insight into outcomes of this commonly performed procedure is essential for adequate treatment evaluation and patient counseling. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the complication rates and functional outcomes following trigger finger release.

METHODS

This is an observational multicenter cohort study of patients undergoing trigger finger release. The primary outcome included the occurrence of complications. The secondary outcome was change in hand function (Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire) from baseline to 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Complications were observed in 17.1 percent of 1879 patients. Most complications were minor, requiring hand therapy or analgesics (7.0 percent of all patients), antibiotics, or steroid injections (7.8 percent). However, 2.1 percent required surgical treatment and 0.2 percent developed complex regional pain syndrome. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire total score improved from baseline to 3 months postoperatively with 12.7 points, although the authors found considerable variation in outcomes with less improvement in patients with better baseline scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that trigger finger release results in improved hand function, although complications occur in 17 percent. Most complications are minor and can be treated with nonsurgical therapy, resulting in improved hand function as well. However, additional surgical treatment is required in 2 percent of patients. In addition, the authors found that change in hand function depends on the baseline score, with less improvement in patients with better baseline scores. Future studies should investigate factors that contribute to the variability in treatment outcomes following trigger finger release.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Nonpalmar Endoscopic versus Open Trigger Finger Release: Results from a Prospective Trial

The most common complaint after open surgical release for trigger finger is of pain and scarring at the surgical site. We hypothesized that use of a new nonpalmar endoscopic approach for release of the A1 pulley through an incision at the proximal digital crease would result in decreased scarring and faster recovery compared to those treated with standard open release.

Methods

Patients with trigger finger were prospectively enrolled and treated with a nonpalmar endoscopic versus open surgical technique. Outcome measures included scar assessment based on the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) administered 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively, time before return to work, occupational therapy visits, and overall satisfaction. Additional outcomes included pain medication use, operative time, and complication and recurrence rates.

Results

POSAS scores were better in the endoscopic treatment group than in the open group at all time points with a statistically significant difference seen at 1 week and 1 month postoperatively. The endoscopic group returned to work sooner, required fewer occupational therapy visits, and had better overall satisfaction compared to the open group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Complication and recurrence rates did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusions

Patients treated for trigger finger with a nonpalmar endoscopic release through an incision at the proximal digital crease demonstrate significantly better scarring in the early postoperative period compared to patients treated with the open surgical approach. Treatment for trigger finger with this technique is as effective as the standard open technique.

Factors associated with self-reported pain and hand function following surgical A1 pulley release

Surgical A1 pulley release can considerably reduce pain and improve hand function, but individual outcomes are highly variable. This study aimed to identify factors contributing to self-reported pain and hand function 3 months postoperatively. We included 2681 patients who had received surgical treatment for a trigger finger or thumb and who completed the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Hierarchical linear regression models were used to investigate patient and clinical characteristics associated with postoperative pain and hand function. For both pain and hand function, the most influential factors associated with worse outcomes were worse MHQ scores at baseline (β 0.38 and 0.33, respectively) and ≥3 preoperative steroid injections (β -0.36 and -0.35). These factors indicated that patients with severe preoperative symptoms represent a group with a more advanced disease that is more difficult to treat. These findings can assist clinicians in patient counselling, expectation management and decision-making about the timing of the intervention.Level of evidence: II.

Overview of Methods to Quantify Invasiveness of Surgical Approaches in Orthopedic Surgery—A Scoping Review

Background

There is a trend toward minimally invasive and more automated procedures in orthopedic surgery. An important aspect in the further development of these techniques is the quantitative assessment of the surgical approach. The aim of this scoping review is to deliver a structured overview on the currently used methods for quantitative analysis of a surgical approaches' invasiveness in orthopedic procedures. The compiled metrics presented in the herein study can serve as the basis for digitization of surgery and advanced computational methods that focus on optimizing surgical procedures.

Methods

We performed a blinded literature search in November 2020. In-vivo and ex-vivo studies that quantitatively assess the invasiveness of the surgical approach were included with a special focus on radiological methods. We excluded studies using exclusively one or multiple of the following parameters: risk of reoperation, risk of dislocation, risk of infection, risk of patient-reported nerve injury, rate of thromboembolic event, function, length of stay, blood loss, pain, operation time.

Results

The final selection included 51 articles. In the included papers, approaches to 8 different anatomical structures were investigated, the majority of which examined procedures of the hip (57%) and the spine (29%). The different modalities to measure the invasiveness were categorized into three major groups “biological” (23 papers), “radiological” (25), “measured in-situ” (14) and their use “in-vivo” or “ex-vivo” was analyzed. Additionally, we explain the basic principles of each modality and match it to the anatomical structures it has been used on.

Discussion

An ideal metric used to quantify the invasiveness of a surgical approach should be accurate, cost-effective, non-invasive, comprehensive and integratable into the clinical workflow. We find that the radiological methods best meet such criteria. However, radiological metrics can be more prone to confounders such as coexisting pathologies than in-situ measurements but are non-invasive and possible to perform in-vivo. Additionally, radiological metrics require substantial expertise and are not cost-effective. Owed to their high accuracy and low invasiveness, radiological methods are, in our opinion, the best suited for computational applications optimizing surgical procedures. The key to quantify a surgical approach's invasiveness lies in the integration of multiple metrics.

Projection of the A1-Pulley of the Thumb onto Superficial Anatomical Landmarks: An Anatomical Study and a Useful Guide to Surgeons

BACKGROUND

The aim of our study was to project the A1-pulley of the thumb onto the total thumb length to enable its complete division with and without direct sight.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study involved 50 hands from adult human cadavers. The proximal and distal borders of the A1-pulley were measured with reference to the first metacarpophalangeal joint (MCPJ). The length of the thumb was defined as the interval between the first carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) and the apex of the thumb. The length of the pulley is calculated proportionally with reference to the line between the first CMCJ and apex of the thumb.

RESULTS

Approximated by computing 95% confidence intervals, the pulley can be expected to lie in an area between 34.0% (proximal border) and 57.8% (distal border) alongside this line.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous and minimally-invasive division of the A1-pulley needs to be performed between 34.0 and 57.8% of the length between the first CMCJ and apex of the thumb.

Endoscopic Retrograde Approach for Trigger Finger Release: A Cadaver Study

Trigger finger is one of the most common causes of disability and pain in the hand. Current surgical techniques for trigger finger release fall short in that they are performed blindly with trauma to, or require incision of, the palmar fascia, which can be a source of significant and long-lasting morbidity. Retrograde endoscopic release of the A1 pulley was performed through a single incision at the proximal digital crease in cadaveric specimens. The fingers were then dissected to assess for completeness of release and inspected for injury to nearby structures. Complete release of the A1 pulley was noted in 16 of 16 fingers. No significant injuries to the A2 pulley and flexor tendon were found, and no injuries to the digital nerves or vasculature occurred. The described technique, as demonstrated in cadaveric specimens, is a feasible alternative approach in the treatment of trigger finger. The technique allows complete visualization of A1 pulley release through a single palmar fascia sparing incision.

A prospective, randomized clinical trial of transverse versus longitudinal incisions for trigger finger release

We investigated whether incision type affects scar quality or outcome following trigger finger release. Our primary and secondary hypotheses were that transverse and longitudinal incision types yield similar scar quality and functional improvement. Digits undergoing trigger finger release at the participating hospitals were randomized to receive transverse or longitudinal incisions. The Patient Scar Assessment Scale, Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score were collected at 8 and 54 weeks postoperatively. Of 86 randomized patients, 67 patients (71%) had followed-up at 54 weeks postoperatively. We found no significant differences in above three assessments between the incisions at either time-point. Among patients receiving both incision types for multiple simultaneous trigger finger release, there were no significant differences in Patient Scar Assessment Scale or Observer Scar Assessment Scale scores. We found no significant difference in the scar quality and improvement in patient-reported disability with transverse or longitudinal incisions for trigger finger release. Level of evidence: II.

Surgery for trigger finger

BACKGROUND

Trigger finger is a common clinical disorder, characterised by pain and catching as the patient flexes and extends digits because of disproportion between the diameter of flexor tendons and the A1 pulley. The treatment approach may include non-surgical or surgical treatments. Currently there is no consensus about the best surgical treatment approach (open, percutaneous or endoscopic approaches).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different methods of surgical treatment for trigger finger (open, percutaneous or endoscopic approaches) in adults at any stage of the disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS up to August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed adults with trigger finger and compared any type of surgical treatment with each other or with any other non-surgical intervention. The major outcomes were the resolution of trigger finger, pain, hand function, participant-reported treatment success or satisfaction, recurrence of triggering, adverse events and neurovascular injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trial reports, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes calculated risk ratios (RRs), and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When possible, the data were pooled into meta-analysis using the random-effects model. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included, totalling 1260 participants, with 1361 trigger fingers. The age of participants included in the studies ranged from 16 to 88 years; and the majority of participants were women (approximately 70%). The average duration of symptoms ranged from three to 15 months, and the follow-up after the procedure ranged from eight weeks to 23 months.The studies reported nine types of comparisons: open surgery versus steroid injections (two studies); percutaneous surgery versus steroid injection (five studies); open surgery versus steroid injection plus ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injection (one study); percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection versus steroid injection (one study); percutaneous surgery versus open surgery (five studies); endoscopic surgery versus open surgery (one study); and three comparisons of types of incision for open surgery (transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease, transverse incision of the skin about 2-3 mm distally from distal palmar crease, and longitudinal incision of the skin) (one study).Most studies had significant methodological flaws and were considered at high or unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias. The primary comparison was open surgery versus steroid injections, because open surgery is the oldest and the most widely used treatment method and considered as standard surgery, whereas steroid injection is the least invasive control treatment method as reported in the studies in this review and is often used as first-line treatment in clinical practice.Compared with steroid injection, there was low-quality evidence that open surgery provides benefits with respect to less triggering recurrence, although it has the disadvantage of being more painful. Evidence was downgraded due to study design flaws and imprecision.Based on two trials (270 participants) from six up to 12 months, 50/130 (or 385 per 1000) individuals had recurrence of trigger finger in the steroid injection group compared with 8/140 (or 65 per 1000; range 35 to 127) in the open surgery group, RR 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.33), for an absolute risk difference that 29% fewer people had recurrence of symptoms with open surgery (60% fewer to 3% more individuals); relative change translates to improvement of 83% in the open surgery group (67% to 91% better).At one week, 9/49 (184 per 1000) people had pain on the palm of the hand in the steroid injection group compared with 38/56 (or 678 per 1000; ranging from 366 to 1000) in the open surgery group, RR 3.69 (95% CI 1.99 to 6.85), for an absolute risk difference that 49% more had pain with open surgery (33% to 66% more); relative change translates to worsening of 269% (585% to 99% worse) (one trial, 105 participants).Because of very low quality evidence from two trials we are uncertain whether open surgery improve resolution of trigger finger in the follow-up at six to 12 months, when compared with steroid injection (131/140 observed in the open surgery group compared with 80/130 in the control group; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.76); evidence was downgraded due to study design flaws, inconsistency and imprecision. Low-quality evidence from two trials and few event rates (270 participants) from six up to 12 months of follow-up, we are uncertain whether open surgery increased the risk of adverse events (incidence of infection, tendon injury, flare, cutaneous discomfort and fat necrosis) (18/140 observed in the open surgery group compared with 17/130 in the control group; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84) and neurovascular injury (9/140 observed in the open surgery group compared with 4/130 in the control group; RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.7 to 6.77). Twelve participants (8 versus 4) did not complete the follow-up, and it was considered that they did not have a positive outcome in the data analysis. We are uncertain whether open surgery was more effective than steroid injection in improving hand function or participant satisfaction as studies did not report these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence indicates that, compared with steroid injection, open surgical treatment in people with trigger finger, may result in a less recurrence rate from six up to 12 months following the treatment, although it increases the incidence of pain during the first follow-up week. We are uncertain about the effect of open surgery with regard to the resolution rate in follow-up at six to 12 months, compared with steroid injections, due high heterogeneity and few events occurred in the trials; we are uncertain too about the risk of adverse events and neurovascular injury because of a few events occurred in the studies. Hand function or participant satisfaction were not reported.