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.
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.