ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2025
Comparison of Open and Percutaneous Treatment in Trigger Finger: A Retrospective Analysis of Functional Results and Cost-Effectiveness.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Trigger finger, a common condition caused by flexor tendon compression in adults, often requires surgical release when conservative treatment fails. This study retrospectively compared the outcomes and costs of percutaneous needle release and traditional open release to treat trigger fingers.Article title is mismatch between Job sheet and author provided manuscript. Kindly check and confirm.Thank you for pointing this out. The correct form of the title is:"Comparison of Open and Percutaneous Treatment in Trigger Finger: A Retrospective Analysis of Functional Results and Cost-Effectiveness."Please use "Cost-Effectiveness" with a capital E. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients over 18 undergoing trigger finger surgery was conducted ( Results: The mean quick disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand scores are 10 ± 5.7 for the percutaneous group and 10.4 ± 5.7 for the open surgery group ( Conclusion: Percutaneous needle release appears to be a more cost-effective alternative to traditional open surgery for the trigger finger, with similar functional outcomes, faster recovery, fewer complications, and lower costs.
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.