ArticleJournal of hand and microsurgery2024
Safety and Efficacy of In-Office Hand Procedures.
Article in Journal of hand and microsurgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lean and Green Hand Surgery in the Office: Does It Work?Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Comparing Complication Rates in Procedures Performed in the Operating Room Versus In-Office: A Cohort Study.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- From wide awake surgery to office surgery.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The primary concerns with operating on patients in the office setting are insufficient sterility and lack of appropriate resources in case of excessive bleeding or other surgical complications. This study serves to investigate these concerns and determine whether in-office hand surgeries are safe and clinically effective. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent minor hand operations in the office setting between December 2020 and December 2021 was performed. The surgical procedures included in this analysis are needle aponeurotomy, trigger finger release, foreign body removal, mass removal, and reduction in a finger fracture with or without percutaneous pinning. All fractures, which primarily included metacarpal and phalangeal fractures, were subsequently splinted. Sterility and hemostatic support were achieved via the Wide-Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet (WALANT) method. Major complications were defined as infection, major bleeding, and neurological deficits. Minor complications were defined as prolonged pain, prolonged inflammation, residual symptoms, and recurrence of symptoms within 1 month. Results: Five patients (3.8%) returned to the office for pain, inflammation, or stiffness of the affected finger, with two of the five returning with symptoms associated with osteoarthritis or pseudogout flare-ups. Five additional patients returned due to residual symptoms or recurrence of the primary complaint within 1 month of surgery. No patients experienced exogenous infection. Conclusion: The absence of major complications and high success rate for minor hand procedures shows the high degree of safety and efficacy that can be achieved via the in-office setting for select procedures. While proper patient selection is key, our result shows the in-office procedure room setting can offer the necessary elements of sterility and hemostatic support for several common hand surgeries.
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.