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

Ultrasound-guided vs. non-guided trigger finger release: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Trigger finger (TF) is a common hand condition that can be treated with surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether ultrasound-guided (US-guided) percutaneous surgery is superior to other conventional surgical methods.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing US-guided TF release with blind percutaneous or open approaches. We combined Risk Ratios (RR) and Mean Differences (MD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) across studies. Data processing and analysis were conducted using R software, version 4.3.1.

RESULTS

Our analysis included eight RCTs and two observational studies with 555 patients. US-guided surgery significantly reduced postoperative DASH scores (MD -3.75 points; 95% CI = -7.48, -0.02; p < 0.01), shortened time to resume activities (MD -11.52 days; 95% CI = -16.13, -6.91; p < 0.01), hastened discontinuation of oral analgesics (MD -4.44 days; 95% CI = -8.01, -0.87; p < 0.01), and improved patient satisfaction scores (RR 1.13; 95% CI = 1.04, 1.23; p = 0.75). There were no significant differences in VAS scores, time to movement recovery, or surgical success rate.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous release is a safe, effective, and superior alternative for treating TF compared to other methods, leading to improved DASH scores, quicker recovery, faster cessation of oral analgesics, and enhanced patient satisfaction.

Effects of socioeconomic status on patient-reported outcome after surgically treated trigger finger: a retrospective national registry-based study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate if socioeconomic status impacts patient-reported outcomes after a surgically treated trigger finger (TF).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Data on patients with TF treated with surgery were collected from the Swedish National Quality Registry of Hand Surgery (HAKIR) 2010-2019 with an evaluation of symptoms and disability before surgery and at 3 and 12 months after surgery, using the short version of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire.Data from HAKIR and the Swedish National Diabetes Registry (ndr.nu) were combined with socioeconomic data from Statistics Sweden (scb.sc), analysing the impact of marital status, education level, income, occupation, sickness benefits, days of unemployment, social assistance and migrant status on the outcome by a linear regression model.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 5477 patients were operated on for primary TF during the study period, of whom 21% had diabetes, with a response rate of 35% preoperatively, 26% at 3 months and 25% at 12 months.

RESULTS

At all time points, being born in Sweden (preoperatively B-coefficient: -9.74 (95% CI -13.38 to -6.11), 3 months postoperatively -9.80 (95% CI -13.82 to -5.78) and 12 months postoperatively -8.28 (95% CI -12.51 to -4.05); all p<0.001) and high earnings (preoperatively -7.81 (95% CI -11.50 to -4.12), 3 months postoperatively -9.35 (95% CI -13.30 to -5.40) and 12 months postoperatively -10.25 (95% CI -14.37 to -6.13); all p<0.0001) predicted lower QuickDASH scores (ie, fewer symptoms and disability) in the linear regression models. More sick leave during the surgery year predicted higher QuickDASH scores (preoperatively 5.77 (95% CI 3.28 to 8.25; p<0.001), 3 months postoperatively 4.40 (95% CI 1.59 to 7.22; p<0.001) and 12 months postoperatively 4.38 (95% CI 1.35 to 7.40; p=0.005)). No socioeconomic factors impacted the change in QuickDASH score from preoperative to 12 months postoperatively in the fully adjusted model.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with low earnings, high sick leave the same year as the surgery and those born outside of Sweden reported more symptoms both before and after surgery, but the relative improvement was not affected by socioeconomic factors.

Sonographically controlled minimally-invasive A1 pulley release using a new guide instrument - a case series of 106 procedures in 64 patients

BACKGROUND

With percutaneous and minimally-invasive pulley release becoming more popular, safety and reliability of such minimally-invasive procedures remain a concern. Visualization of the technical steps by ultrasound suggests increased safety but shows the potential for harm to tendons, nerves and vessels without proper instrumentation. We present the results of implementing a sonographically guided minimally-invasive procedure in 106 trigger digits of 64 patients between 2018-2021.

METHODS

A guide instrument for use with a commercially available hook knife was developed and tested in 16 cadaver hands. Due to complication early in our clinical series this guide was modified in due course. A revised design of the guide has been in use since November 2019 with improved performance and safety.

RESULTS

One hundred six procedures in 64 patients were performed. After guide revision, we report a success rate of 97.3%. Complications after instrument revision include two cases of incomplete pulley release and one case of inadvertent skin laceration. The majority of patients report returning to all strenuous activities within two weeks at most apart from four individuals with prolonged postoperative discomfort.

CONCLUSION

We present the results of the development and implementation of a novel guide instrument for use with a hook knife to treat trigger finger. Despite several limitations of this study, we show that sonographically controlled, minimally-invasive A1 pulley release can be performed safely and effectively with appropriate surgical instruments and practice.

Trigger Finger Release: Are Sutures Requiring Removal Necessary?

Purpose

There is no consensus regarding optimal closure for trigger finger release (TFR) surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the number of postoperative visits and complications following TFR closure with nonabsorbable sutures versus those following TFR closure with absorbable sutures and skin glue. The hypothesis was that wound closure with absorbable sutures and glue will result in fewer postoperative visits, while having similar complication rates as that with nonabsorbable sutures.

Methods

A retrospective review identified all patients undergoing open TFR over a 3-year period performed by two hand surgery fellowship-trained hand surgeons who adhered to an identical surgical protocol except for incisional closure. Patients were divided into two groups: a control group with nonabsorbable 4-0 monofilament sutures requiring removal ("suture" group) and a study group with buried absorbable 4-0 monofilament sutures not requiring removal as well as skin glue ("glue" group). The data collected included age, sex, number of postoperative visits, wound complications, infections, antibiotic use, prescribed hand therapy, hospital admission, and reoperation.

Results

A total of 305 open TFR surgeries in 278 patients were included in the study, with 155 digits in the "suture" group and 150 in the "glue" group. Both groups were similar in age and sex. The "suture" group had significantly more total postoperative visits (185 vs 42, respectively, P < .001) and postoperative visits within the first 2 weeks (155 vs 10, respectively, P < .001) than the "glue" group. Additional postoperative visits beyond 2 weeks of surgery were similar between the two groups. Three (1.9%) patients in the "suture" group and two (1.3%) patients in the "glue" group developed a superficial surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery. Neither had deep infections requiring hospitalization or reoperation. Both groups required similar rates of postoperative hand therapy.

Conclusions

Absorbable sutures afford fewer postoperative visits while having a similar complication rate as nonabsorbable sutures requiring removal.

Type of study/level of evidence

Therapeutic IV.

Minimal clinically important difference of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire score and the pain visual analogue scale in conservative treatment of trigger finger

We investigated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) and the pain visual analogue scale (VAS-pain) after conservative treatment of trigger finger. This secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial compared pain reduction, symptoms and functional improvement at 12 weeks. Patients included were at least 18 years old and able to complete MHQ and VAS-pain at enrolment and 12 weeks after treatment. The MCIDs of MHQ and VAS-pain were evaluated using a distribution-based, anchor-based and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve-based approach. Of the 117 patients, the MCIDs of MHQ and VAS-pain using a distribution-based approach were 5.3 and 0.6, respectively; applying ROC method were 23.5 and 2.5, respectively; and using anchor questions were 15 and 2, respectively. These MCID values by anchor-based method with a minimal difference of 15 for MHQ and 2 for VAS-pain are recommended as primary evidence to determine clinically significant improvement after conservative treatment of trigger finger.Level of evidence: I.

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.