ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2024
Single-Portal Antegrade Endoscopic Trigger Finger Release: Cadaveric and Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to examine the relationship between anatomical surface landmarks in fresh frozen cadavers as related to in vivo endoscopic trigger finger release (ETFR) and present clinical outcomes after a single-portal antegrade ETFR technique.
methodsEndoscopic trigger finger release was performed on 40 cadaveric digits. Each digit was dissected and the following measurements were recorded: distance from palmar digital crease and A1 pulley, length of the A1 pulley, percentage of A1 pulley released, and injury to vulnerable anatomy. A retrospective chart review was performed on 48 patients (62 digits) treated with ETFR. Outcome measures included grip and pinch strength, range of motion, Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaires, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores.
resultsRelease of the A1 pulley was achieved in 33 of the 40 cadaveric digits (83%) with an A2 pulley laceration rate of 25%. No flexor tendon or neurovascular injuries occurred. Gross grasp, lateral pinch, 3-jaw chuck, and precision pinch strength had 85%, 90%, 82%, and 90% recovery, respectively. At the final follow-up, average metacarpophalangeal joint, proximal interphalangeal joint, and distal interphalangeal joint range of motion were within the normal limits. Mean VAS scores decreased from 5.7 preoperatively to 1.0 postoperatively and mean DASH score at the final follow-up was 4.8.
conclusionsWith the use of anatomical surface landmarks, ETFR may be performed in an efficient and reproducible manner. Patients treated with ETFR had low complication rates, good functional recovery, and improved pain at short-term follow-up. Further study of long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of ETFR is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.