ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2024
Percutaneous Surgery for Trigger Finger Treatment Using a Novel Surgical Device: An Experimental Study on Fresh Cadavers.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ARE POSTS ABOUT TRIGGER FINGER ON THE SOCIAL NETWORKActa ortopedica brasileira · 2026Article
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
Purpose: Trigger finger, a stenosing tenosynovitis of the flexor tendon at the A1 pulley, can cause pain and impair daily activities. Despite common surgical interventions, postsurgical complications are frequent, prompting the search for less invasive techniques. Methods: An experimental study was conducted on fresh cadavers to compare three techniques: the first using a PulleyCut without ultrasound guidance, the second using a PulleyCut with ultrasound guidance, and the third using a percutaneous needle technique. The complete release of the A1 pulley, integrity of the A2 pulley, flexor tendons, and neurovascular bundles were assessed. Results: The new device group and the ultrasound-guided group demonstrated 100% complete release of the A1 pulley, whereas the needle group achieved only 38% success. There were no A2 pulley injuries in any group. Flexor tendons were injured in 7% of cases in the new device group and 77% in the needle group. A neurovascular injury occurred in the needle group. Conclusions: Compared with the percutaneous needle technique, the new device proved safe and effective for A1 pulley release, minimizing damage to flexor tendons and neurovascular structures. Ultrasound did not provide significant advantages, suggesting that the new device can be confidently used without ultrasound assistance. The PulleyCut represents a promising percutaneous technique for trigger finger treatment, demonstrating superiority over the needle technique in terms of efficacy and safety. These results encourage future clinical investigations to validate its practical application. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IIc.
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.