A Comparison of the Outcomes of Open Trigger Release versus Ultrasound-Guided Modified Small Needle-Knife Percutaneous Release for Treatment of Trigger Digits

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.

Analysis of Research Trends in Ultrasound-Guided Acupuncture and Dry-Needling: A Scoping Review

Background: This study aimed to summarize the current status of research on ultrasound-guided acupuncture and dry-needling treatment and the specific treatment methods applied to patients. Methods: A scoping review was conducted, surveying three English databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) for studies published up to May 2024. All studies related to ultrasound-guided acupuncture and dry-needling treatment were considered. Literature was selected using selection and exclusion criteria, and extracted and organized using EndNote. Results: A total of 107 eligible studies were included. Among the 107 studies, non-comparative studies accounted for the largest proportion (n = 47, 43.9%), followed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 41, 38.3%). Diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue (15 diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue) accounted for most (n = 48, 55.8%) of the 86 diseases studied, followed by symptoms, signs, or clinical conditions not otherwise classified (n = 17, 19.8%). Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided acupuncture and dry-needling have been actively studied and applied for the treatment of various diseases. However, higher-quality studies are needed for further applications in research and clinical practice.

Open Versus Percutaneous Fixation of Trigger Finger: Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

With variable and conflicting results to date, it remains unclear whether the percutaneous or open surgical A1 pulley release technique is superior regarding safety and efficacy. The goal of this meta-analysis was to compare the two techniques.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched through August 2023. Eight randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the eight included studies and 548 total patients, there were 278 subjects in the percutaneous release group and 270 subjects in the open release group. There was no significant difference between the two surgical techniques in postoperative rates of revision, complications, or pain.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found no significant difference between open and percutaneous techniques regarding the need for revision procedures, complications, or postoperative pain. Therefore, both open and percutaneous releases are appropriate.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic I.

Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Tendon Release for Trigger Finger Compared With Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Trigger finger (also known as stenosing tenosynovitis) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects the fingers and causes discomfort and functional impairment. It is estimated to affect 2-3.6% of the population and is more common in manual laborers and individuals engaged in repetitive hand activities. This study comprehensively compares the efficacy of ultrasound-guided release versus traditional open surgery in treating trigger fingers.

MATERIALS

We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were studies evaluating ultrasound-guided release of trigger finger (grade 2 and higher) compared with open surgical release. A meta-analysis was performed by Revman software 5.4.1 to assess efficacy, utilizing appropriate statistical methods to address heterogeneity. Primary outcome measures included "Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand" (QDASH) scores, Grip strength, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Secondary outcome measures included Days of stopping analgesia, full-digit flexion and extension, days to return to normal activities, pinch strength, Quinnell grading score, and bow strengthening.

RESULTS

Out of the initial pool of 820 studies, five met the inclusion criteria, including 275 patients with 283 trigger digits. The analysis revealed significant differences favoring the ultrasound-guided release group over the surgical group for improvement in Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score in the first month (MD -0.48, 95% CI: 0.75 to -0.2, P = .0007, I2  = 20%). The difference was not statistically significant in the 3-month follow-up period (MD -2.25, 95% CI: -0.54 to 0.05, P = .1, I2  = 0%). Additionally, there is a significant difference in the days required for return to normal activities in favor of the ultrasound release approach (MD -13.78, 95% CI: -16.68 to 10.89, P = .00001, I2  = 68%). The data displayed heterogeneity, which was resolved through sensitivity analysis that also favored the ultrasound-guided group. In terms of grip strength, full-digit flexion and extension, VAS, and days of stopping analgesia no significant differences were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound-guided release showed advantages over open surgical release, resulting in improved QDASH score and quicker return to normal activities. This offers a minimally invasive, successful alternative to open surgery, reducing associated risks. Further studies with long-term follow-up are recommended.