The Effectiveness of Rehabilitation after Open Surgical Release for Trigger Finger: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10671987 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsPOSAS 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.ConclusionsPatients 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.
| S-EPMC9542749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo investigate the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided release of the first annular pulley and compare results with the conventional open operative technique.MethodsIn this prospective randomized, single-center, clinical study, 32 patients with trigger finger or trigger thumb, grade II-IV according to Green classification system, were recruited. Two groups were formed; Group A (16 patients) was treated with an ultrasound-guided percutaneous release of the affected A1 pulley under local anesthesia. Group B (16 patients) underwent an open surgical release of the A1 pulley, through a 10-15 mm incision. Patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively (follow-up: 2, 4 and 12 wk) by physicians blinded to the procedures. Treatment of triggering (primary variable of interest) was expressed as the "success rate" per digit. The time for taking postoperative pain killers, range of motion recovery, QuickDASH test scores (Greek version), return to normal activities (including work), complications and cosmetic results were assessed.ResultsThe success rate in group A was 93.75% (15/16) and in group B 100% (16/16). Mean times in group A patients were 3.5 d for taking pain killers, 4.1 d for returning to normal activities, and 7.2 and 3.9 d for complete extension and flexion recovery, respectively. Mean QuickDASH scores in group A were 45.5 preoperatively and, 7.5, 0.5 and 0 after 2, 4, and 12 wk postoperatively. Mean times in group B patients were 2.9 d for taking pain killers, 17.8 d for returning to normal activities, and 5.6 and 3 d for complete extension and flexion recovery. Mean QuickDASH scores in group B were 43.2 preoperatively and, 8.2, 1.3 and 0 after 2, 4, and 12 wk postoperatively. The cosmetic results found excellent or good in 87.5% (14/16) of group A patients, while in 56.25% (9/16) of group B patients were evaluated as fair or poor.ConclusionTreatment of the trigger finger using ultrasonography resulted in fewer absence of work days, and better cosmetic results, in comparison with the open surgery technique. It is a promising method that represents excellent results without major complications, so that it could be possibly be established as a first-line treatment in the trigger finger's disease.
| S-EPMC5314146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Trigger finger (TF), also known as stenosing flexor tenosynovitis, is a common pathology of the fingers causing functional deficit of the hand. In recent years, new therapeutic approaches such as extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and ultrasound-guided (USG) procedures have joined the most traditional conservative treatments as the adaptation of daily activities involving the affected hand and the orthosis. Likewise, the ultrasound (US) examination of the affected finger using modern high-frequency probes has progressively become part of the comprehensive assessment of patients with TF coupled with the medical history, the physical examination, and the functional scales. In this sense, considering the technological advances in both diagnostic and therapeutic fields, the non-surgical strategies have progressively grown defining a rehabilitation panel more complex than in the past. The present manuscript aims to provide an updated practical guide for clinicians and surgeons reviewing the state-of-art of both the assessment and the treatments of patients with TF to plan tailored rehabilitation management taking advantage of the matching of traditional and novel techniques.
| S-EPMC11664832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTrigger finger is a common hand disorder that limits finger range of motion and causes pain and snapping of the affected finger. Trigger finger is caused by an imbalance of the tendon sheath and the flexor tendon. The initial treatment is generally a local corticosteroid injection around the first annular (A1) pulley. However, it is not unusual that surgical release of the A1 pulley is required. Moreover, adverse events after local corticosteroid injection or operative treatment may occur. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been shown to be safe and to reduce symptoms in different tendon pathologies, such as DeQuervain's disease. However, the effects of PRP on trigger finger have not been studied. The aim of this single-center triple-blind randomized controlled trial is to study whether PRP is non-inferior to corticosteroid injection in treating trigger finger. The secondary outcome is to assess the safety and efficacy of PRP in comparison to placebo.MethodsThe trial is designed as a randomized, controlled, patient-, investigator-, and outcome assessor-blinded, single-center, three-armed 1:1:1 non-inferiority trial. The patients with clinical symptoms of trigger finger will be randomly assigned to treatment with PRP, corticosteroid, or normal saline injection. The primary outcome is Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation and symptom resolution. Secondary outcomes include Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; pain; grip strength; finger active range of motion; and complications. Appropriate statistical methods will be applied.DiscussionWe present a novel RCT study design on the use of PRP for the treatment of trigger finger compared to corticosteroid and normal saline injection. The results of the trial will indicate if PRP is appropriate for the treatment of trigger finger.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04167098 . Registered on November 18, 2019.
| S-EPMC7694424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the effects of single and multiple massage treatments on pressure-pain threshold (PPT) at myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) in people with myofascial pain syndrome expressed as tension-type headache.DesignIndividuals (n = 62) with episodic or chronic tension-type headache were randomized to receive 12 twice-weekly 45-min massage or sham ultrasound sessions or wait-list control. Massage focused on trigger point release (ischemic compression) of MTrPs in the bilateral upper trapezius and suboccipital muscles. PPT was measured at MTrPs with a pressure algometer pre and post the first and final (12th) treatments.ResultsPPT increased across the study timeframe in all four muscle sites tested for massage, but not sham ultrasound or wait-list groups (P < 0.0001 for suboccipital; P < 0.004 for upper trapezius). Post hoc analysis within the massage group showed (1) an initial, immediate increase in PPT (all P values < 0.05), (2) a cumulative and sustained increase in PPT over baseline (all P values < 0.05), and (3) an additional immediate increase in PPT at the final (12th) massage treatment (all P values < 0.05, except upper trapezius left, P = 0.17).ConclusionsSingle and multiple massage applications increase PPT at MTrPs. The pain threshold of MTrPs have a great capacity to increase; even after multiple massage treatments additional gain in PPT was observed.To claim cme creditsComplete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Understand the contribution of myofascial trigger points to myofascial pain; (2) Describe an effective treatment for decreasing tenderness of a myofascial trigger point; and (3) Discuss the relative values of single vs. multiple massage sessions on increasing pressure-pain thresholds at myofascial trigger points.LevelAdvanced ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 0.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
| S-EPMC5561477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Trigger fingers can be treated by open or percutaneous division of the A1 pulley. The open approach allows for visualization of the pulley, the tendon, and the adjacent neurovascular bundles. The percutaneous trigger finger release (PTFR) lacks an incision and is thought to lead to a quicker recovery, but the safety and efficacy of this blind procedure are often questioned. Ultrasound imaging has recently been introduced as an adjunct for guiding the needle during percutaneous trigger finger release. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of needle trigger finger release with added ultrasound imaging. Eighteen fresh cadaver A1 pulleys were divided percutaneously and then evaluated by converting to an open technique and examining the pulleys, the tendons, and the neurovascular bundles. This study's ultrasound images demonstrated repeated puncture of the tendon sheath and of the neurovascular bundle during PTFR. The subsequent dissection revealed three out of 18 tendons with visible lacerations and 15 out of 18 A1 pulleys with incomplete division. We concluded that ultrasound-guided PTFR can be complicated by flexor tendon lacerations, potential injury to neurovascular bundles, and incomplete division of the A1 pulleys. While the clinical significance of these findings is unclear to us, it does raise questions regarding the safety and efficacy of percutaneous trigger finger release, even when adding ultrasound guidance.
| S-EPMC2654952 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. METHODS:The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. RESULTS:Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.
| S-EPMC4317413 | biostudies-other
Project description:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of local platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection as an adjuvant treatment after carpal ligament release. We conducted a prospective randomized, triple-blinded, controlled trial. Fifty participants with mild to extreme carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) were randomly assigned either to the PRP (n = 25) or the platelet-poor plasma (PPP, n = 25) group. After performing open surgical release of the carpal ligament, the inside of the carpal tunnel was irrigated with 3 mL of PRP or PPP according to each participant's group allocation. The primary outcome was hand grip strength (HGS). Secondary outcomes were the time taken off work after surgery (in days) and scores on the Wong-Baker Faces Scale, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire, and Southampton Wound Assessment Scale. We evaluated patients before treatment and at 6-weeks. As expected, the pain levels, symptom severity, and functional status improved in all the patients after surgery. However, intragroup analysis revealed that only the participants in the PRP group had regained their pre-operative HGS levels at 6-weeks follow-up. These findings indicate that PRP is an effective adjuvant treatment in patients with mild to severe CTS who require surgery.
| S-EPMC7005701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Post-operative rehabilitation following rotator cuff tear repair (RCR) is important to promote tendon healing, restore strength, and recover normal function. Aquatic therapy in hot water allows body relaxation, which promotes patient conditioning for efficient rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to assess whether aquatic therapy is more efficient than standard (land-based) rehabilitation in terms of range of motion (ROM), function, and pain after arthroscopic RCR. Methods: We prospectively randomized 86 patients scheduled for arthroscopic RCR to either aquatic therapy (n = 44) or standard rehabilitation (n = 42) using block sizes of four or six. Patients were evaluated clinically at 1.5, 3, 6, and 24 months and using ultrasound (US) at 6 months. Two-way mixed ANOVA tests were performed to evaluate the effects of rehabilitation type (between-subjects factor) on ROM and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) over time (within-subjects factor). Post-hoc inter-group comparisons at each time point were also conducted using Wilcoxon rank sum tests or unpaired Student t-tests and adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Results: The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of demographic data or pre-operative characteristics, except for the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, which was lower in the aquatic therapy group (37.9 ± 23.6 vs. 55.6 ± 24.9, p = 0.019). The mixed model revealed the absence of interaction effect between the type of rehabilitation and time on PROMs and ROM except on the SANE score (p < 0.001), which was biased by the existing pre-operative difference mentioned above. Furthermore, none of the post-operative outcomes were statistically different between the two groups at 1.5, 3, 6, and 24 months. In addition, no significant difference could be noted regarding tendon healing rate (p = 0.443), complication (p = 0.349), workstop duration (0.585), or patient satisfaction (p = 0.663). Conclusion: Compared to the standard rehabilitation, the aquatic therapy did not yield superior clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic RCR when started immediately after the surgery.
| S-EPMC9028498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCranioplasty (CP), a surgical procedure that restores cranial integrity and potentially enhances neurological outcomes, is commonly performed following decompressive craniectomy for various reasons. However, there is considerable controversy and variation regarding the optimal timing for cranioplasty, particularly concerning its impact on neurological functional outcomes. This paper outlines the protocol for a multicenter, non-randomized controlled trial designed to investigate whether the timing of cranioplasty influences neurological outcomes.Methods/designThis study will be conducted from June 2025 to June 2026 across multiple clinical centers in China, targeting the enrollment of at least 500 adults aged 18-65 years with skull defects larger than 25 cm². Participants will be divided based on the timing of their cranioplasty relative to decompressive craniectomy into two groups: early (within 3 months post-decompression) and late (after 3 months). The primary outcome, assessed through the Barthel Index, will measure functional recovery 6 months post-surgery, with secondary outcomes including mortality, quality of life, cognitive performance and complication rates.DiscussionThis non-randomized clinical trial focuses on the neurological outcomes associated with different timings of cranioplasty. It is anticipated that the findings will contribute valuable insights and support more informed clinical decisions regarding the timing of cranioplasty. By comparing early and late cranioplasty, the trial aims to clarify how timing affects recovery and overall neurological improvement post-surgery. Trial Registration: ChiCTR2400094619.
| S-EPMC11892811 | biostudies-literature