ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2025
Comparison of open and percutaneous A1 pulley release in pediatric trigger thumb: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Pediatric trigger thumb (PTT) is characterized by flexion deformity and interphalangeal joint locking caused by A1 pulley constriction. Open A1 pulley release is the standard surgical method, whereas percutaneous release under local anesthesia offers a minimally invasive outpatient alternative. This study compared the outcomes of these two techniques. Methods: A retrospective cohort of children aged 2-10 years undergoing A1 pulley release between 2012 and 2024 was analyzed. Patients were assigned to open release under general anesthesia or percutaneous release under local anesthesia. Demographics, operative details, complications, and outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical tests, with significance set at p<0.05. Results: Ninety-nine patients (107 thumbs) were included: 53 (58 thumbs) in the open group and 46 (49 thumbs) in the percutaneous group. Mean age at surgery was similar (4.33 ± 1.53 vs. 4.29 ± 1.70 years; p=0.781). Satisfactory results were achieved in 100 % of open and 85.7 % of percutaneous cases (p=0.003). Recurrence was 3.4 % and 8.2 %, respectively (p=0.409). No neurovascular or tendon injuries occurred; superficial infections were minor and limited to the open group. Conclusions: Both techniques are effective and safe. Open release remains the gold standard, while percutaneous release is a practical minimally invasive option in selected patients. Level of evidence: III, retrospective comparative study.
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.