Chin-Jung Lin1, Hui-Kuang Huang2, Shih-Tien Wang3, Yi-Chao Huang3, Chien-Lin Liu3, Jung-Pan Wang4. 1. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC; Kinmen Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Kinmen, Taiwan, ROC. 2. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC; Department of Orthopaedics, Chiayi Christian Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan, ROC; Chung Hwa University of Medical Technology, Tainan, Taiwan, ROC. 3. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. 4. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. Electronic address: jpwang@vghtpe.gov.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been excellent outcomes reported with both open and percutaneous release of trigger finger. However, a comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between these two techniques has not been performed. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-term (3 months) and long-term (2 years) outcomes between open surgical release and percutaneous needle release of trigger finger. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, a total of 198 patients with trigger finger treated with either open (n = 72) or percutaneous (n = 126) release of the A1 pulley were enrolled in the study. Both short-term and long-term outcomes were evaluated, using the criteria established through Gilberts et al's questionnaire. RESULTS: The short-term satisfaction of patients with their results was significantly better in the percutaneous release group, whereas the long-term satisfaction rates were better in the open-release group, although not at a statistically significant level. CONCLUSION: The percutaneous release method to release trigger finger does not have a better long-term satisfaction rate than the open release approach, although percutaneous release has a significantly better short-term satisfaction rate.
BACKGROUND: There have been excellent outcomes reported with both open and percutaneous release of trigger finger. However, a comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between these two techniques has not been performed. The purpose of this study is to compare the short-term (3 months) and long-term (2 years) outcomes between open surgical release and percutaneous needle release of trigger finger. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, a total of 198 patients with trigger finger treated with either open (n = 72) or percutaneous (n = 126) release of the A1 pulley were enrolled in the study. Both short-term and long-term outcomes were evaluated, using the criteria established through Gilberts et al's questionnaire. RESULTS: The short-term satisfaction of patients with their results was significantly better in the percutaneous release group, whereas the long-term satisfaction rates were better in the open-release group, although not at a statistically significant level. CONCLUSION: The percutaneous release method to release trigger finger does not have a better long-term satisfaction rate than the open release approach, although percutaneous release has a significantly better short-term satisfaction rate.