Original ArticleNo Access

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

Xiaoyong LAN

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, PR China

Xiaoyong LAN and Lei XIAO contributed equally to this work.

Search for more papers by this author

Lei XIAO

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, PR China

Xiaoyong LAN and Lei XIAO contributed equally to this work.

Search for more papers by this author

Baihua CHEN

Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Yipin XIONG

Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

Lingfeng ZOU

Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, PR China

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Jun LUO

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, PR China

E-mail Address: luojun_nc@126.com

Correspondence to: Jun Luo, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, PR China.

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835523500017Cited by:7 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Background: The aim of this randomised prospective study is to compare the outcomes of traditional open trigger digit release versus ultrasound-guided modified small needle-knife (SNK) percutaneous release in the treatment of trigger digits.

Methods: Patients with grade 2 and above trigger digits were enrolled into the study and randomly assigned to traditional open surgery (OS) or ultrasound-guided modified SNK percutaneous release group. The patients were followed up for 7, 30 and 180 days after treatment and data with regard to visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Quinnell grading (QG) was collected and compared between the two groups.

Results: A total of 72 patients were enrolled in the study with 30 in the OS group and 42 in the SNK group. VAS scores and QG of the two groups significantly decreased at 7 days and 30 days after treatment compared to before treatment, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. There was also no differences between the two groups at 180 days and between the values at 30 days and 180 days.

Conclusions: The outcomes of ultrasound-guided SNK percutaneous release is similar to traditional OS.

Level of Evidence: Level II (Therapeutic)

Keywords:

REFERENCES

1. Jeanmonod R, Harberger S, Waseem M. Trigger finger. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; August 7, 2022. Accessed 2022. Google Scholar
2. Matthews A, Smith K, Read L, Nicholas J, Schmidt E. Trigger finger: An overview of the treatment options. JAAPA. January 2019;32(1):17–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JAA.0000550281.42592.97. Crossref, Google Scholar
3. Lin W, Liu C-Y, Tang C-L, Hsu C-H. Acupuncture and small needle scalpel therapy in the treatment of calcifying tendonitis of the gluteus medius: A case report. Acupunct Med. June 2012;30(2):142–143. https://doi.org/10.1136/acupmed-2012-010149. Crossref, Google Scholar
4. Quinnell RC. Conservative management of trigger finger. Practitioner. February 1980;224(1340):187–190. Medline, Google Scholar
5. Fiorini HJ, Tamaoki MJ, Lenza M, Santos JBGD, Faloppa F, Belloti JC. Surgery for trigger finger. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. February 20, 2018;2(2):CD009860. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009860.pub2. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6. Xie P, Zhang Q-H, Zheng G-Z, et al.. Stenosing tenosynovitis: Evaluation of percutaneous release with a specially designed needle vs. open surgery. Orthopade. March 2019;48(3):202–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-018-03676-4. Crossref, Google Scholar
7. Makkouk AH, Oetgen ME, Swigart CR, Dodds SD. Trigger finger: Etiology, evaluation, and treatment. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. June 2008;1(2):92–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-007-9012-1. Crossref, Google Scholar
8. Brozovich N, Agrawal D, Reddy G. A critical appraisal of adult trigger finger: Pathophysiology, treatment, and future outlook. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. August 8, 2019;7(8):e2360. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002360. Crossref, Google Scholar
9. Vasiliadis AV, Itsiopoulos I. Trigger finger: An atraumatic medical phenomenon. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol. June 2017;22(2):188–193. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021881041750023X. Link, Google Scholar
10. Huisstede BM, Gladdines S, Randsdorp MS, Koes BW. Effectiveness of conservative, surgical, and postsurgical interventions for trigger finger, Dupuytren disease, and De Quervain disease: A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. August 2018;99(8):1635–1649.e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.07.014. Crossref, Google Scholar
11. Calleja H, Tanchuling A, Alagar D, Tapia C, Macalalad A. Anatomic outcome of percutaneous release among patients with trigger finger. J Hand Surg Am. October 2010;35(10):1671–1674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.06.006. Crossref, Google Scholar
12. Eastwood DM, Gupta KJ, Johnson DP. Percutaneous release of the trigger finger: An office procedure. J Hand Surg Am. January 1992;17(1):114–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-5023(92)90125-9. Crossref, Google Scholar
13. Ha KI, Park MJ, Ha CW. Percutaneous release of trigger digits: A technique and results using a specially designed knife. J Bone Joint Surg Br. January 2001;83(1):75–77. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.83b1.11247. Crossref, Google Scholar
14. Pan M, Sheng S, Fan Z, et al.. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous release of A1 pulley by using a needle knife: A prospective study of 41 cases. Front Pharmacol. March 26, 2019;10:267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.00267. Crossref, Google Scholar