Scholarlink

Background <p>There is no consensus as to the best technique for percutaneous trigger finger release.</p> Methods <p>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> Results <p>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&#xa0;mm, K = 6.29 ± 4.07&#xa0;mm, and <i>N</i> = 2.02 ± 3.46&#xa0;mm; N vs. NK <i>p</i> = 0.015, N vs. K <i>p</i> = 0.002, and NK vs. K <i>p</i> = 1.000), and cut percentage in relation to the total pulley length (NK = 51.61 ± 28.34%, K = 54.63 ± 33.72% and <i>N</i> = 18.24 ± 31.09%; N vs. NK <i>p</i> = 0.008, N vs. K <i>p</i> = 0.003, and NK vs. K <i>p</i> = 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> Conclusions <p>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>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

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

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月28日

查看全文
  • Javier de la Fuente,
  • Marc Blasi,
  • Fernando Dávila,
  • Àngels Ribera,
  • Xavier Sala-Blanch,
  • Ramón Balius

摘要

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.