ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Comparative results of percutaneous and open surgery for trigger fingers: a propensity score analysis.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. 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.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Contemporary Trigger Finger Treatment Strategies: A Medicare Payer Perspective.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2027Article
- Article
- Percutaneous Release of Trigger Finger: Long-Term Review of Outcomes Using 18-Gauge Needle.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Trigger finger is a common hand condition characterized by the locking of a digit, often requiring surgical intervention when conservative treatments fail. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of a modified percutaneous release technique with those of traditional open release surgery. Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 245 patients (287 digits), of which 161 digits underwent open release and 126 underwent percutaneous release. A modified technique for percutaneous release was described. Propensity score matching was used to balance the data. Cox regression and Laplace regression were applied to analyze the hazard ratio and median survival time for pain relief and time to return to work. Adverse events were also reported. Results: The duration of pain relief in the percutaneous release group was shorter than that in the open release group (hazard ratio = 1.73, 95% CI: 0.98-3.06; Conclusions: Percutaneous release resulted in an earlier return to work and a high success rate (97.6%) with no nerve injuries or recurrences over 42 months. Despite a 2.4% failure rate, careful technique minimized complications. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings and optimize patient selection.
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.