Efficacy of Ultrasound‐Guided Tendon Release for Trigger Finger Compared With Open Surgery
Sarah Amro,Muataz Kashbour,Mahmoud Shaaban Abdelgalil,Ruaa Mustafa Qafesha,Hatem Eldeeb
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16408
2024-01-13
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Abstract: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.
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,acoustics