A1 pulley cutting potential and safety of three ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release techniques for trigger finger: a cadaveric study.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research Pub Date : 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1186/s13018-025-05590-w
Javier de la Fuente, Marc Blasi, Fernando Dávila, Àngels Ribera, Xavier Sala-Blanch, Ramón Balius
{"title":"A1 pulley cutting potential and safety of three ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release techniques for trigger finger: a cadaveric study.","authors":"Javier de la Fuente, Marc Blasi, Fernando Dávila, Àngels Ribera, Xavier Sala-Blanch, Ramón Balius","doi":"10.1186/s13018-025-05590-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is no consensus as to the best technique for percutaneous trigger finger release.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This assessor-blinded study compared three ultrasound-guided percutaneous trigger finger release techniques using a needle (N), a needle-knife (NK), and a specially designed knife (K). Three physicians simulated A1 pulley release surgery on 56 fingers of 14 fresh-frozen hand cadaver body donors. Both the physicians and the fingers included were randomly selected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results of repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significantly longer cuts for the NK and K techniques, than for the N technique, both absolute (mean ± SD) (NK = 5.55 ± 3.07 mm, K = 6.29 ± 4.07 mm, and N = 2.02 ± 3.46 mm; N vs. NK p = 0.015, N vs. K p = 0.002, and NK vs. K p = 1.000), and cut percentage in relation to the total pulley length (NK = 51.61 ± 28.34%, K = 54.63 ± 33.72% and N = 18.24 ± 31.09%; N vs. NK p = 0.008, N vs. K p = 0.003, and NK vs. K p = 1.000). No neurovascular bundle injuries were found upon dissection. The overall complication rate was 11%, with no significant differences among the three techniques. Only one major tendon injury occurred in the NK group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this cadaveric study, the NK and K techniques were more effective at releasing the A1 pulley than the N technique. All three techniques have emerged as equally safe.</p>","PeriodicalId":16629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","volume":"20 1","pages":"215"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11869403/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-025-05590-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is no consensus as to the best technique for percutaneous trigger finger release.

Methods: This assessor-blinded study compared three ultrasound-guided percutaneous trigger finger release techniques using a needle (N), a needle-knife (NK), and a specially designed knife (K). Three physicians simulated A1 pulley release surgery on 56 fingers of 14 fresh-frozen hand cadaver body donors. Both the physicians and the fingers included were randomly selected.

Results: The results of repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significantly longer cuts for the NK and K techniques, than for the N technique, both absolute (mean ± SD) (NK = 5.55 ± 3.07 mm, K = 6.29 ± 4.07 mm, and N = 2.02 ± 3.46 mm; N vs. NK p = 0.015, N vs. K p = 0.002, and NK vs. K p = 1.000), and cut percentage in relation to the total pulley length (NK = 51.61 ± 28.34%, K = 54.63 ± 33.72% and N = 18.24 ± 31.09%; N vs. NK p = 0.008, N vs. K p = 0.003, and NK vs. K p = 1.000). No neurovascular bundle injuries were found upon dissection. The overall complication rate was 11%, with no significant differences among the three techniques. Only one major tendon injury occurred in the NK group.

Conclusions: In this cadaveric study, the NK and K techniques were more effective at releasing the A1 pulley than the N technique. All three techniques have emerged as equally safe.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
494
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of clinical and basic research studies related to musculoskeletal issues. Orthopaedic research is conducted at clinical and basic science levels. With the advancement of new technologies and the increasing expectation and demand from doctors and patients, we are witnessing an enormous growth in clinical orthopaedic research, particularly in the fields of traumatology, spinal surgery, joint replacement, sports medicine, musculoskeletal tumour management, hand microsurgery, foot and ankle surgery, paediatric orthopaedic, and orthopaedic rehabilitation. The involvement of basic science ranges from molecular, cellular, structural and functional perspectives to tissue engineering, gait analysis, automation and robotic surgery. Implant and biomaterial designs are new disciplines that complement clinical applications. JOSR encourages the publication of multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines, which will be the trend in the coming decades.
期刊最新文献
Incidence, bacteriological profile and predictors of surgical site infections following limb amputation at Bugando medical centre and Sekou toure referral regional hospital, Mwanza, Tanzania. Injury risk reduction programs including balance training reduce the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in soccer players: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Predictive model for surgical intervention in pediatric acute hematogenous osteomyelitis. Relationship between anterior or posterior femoral head necrosis and collapse based on MRI-defined key necrotic layer sets. The efficacy of exercise prescription in patients with osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1