Observational studyJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Percutaneous versus open release for trigger finger: a retrospective comparison of outcomes, complications, and costs in 110 patients from a Swedish cohort.
Observational study in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. 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
backgroundTrigger finger (TF) is a common hand condition often requiring surgery. Open surgery (OS) is the standard treatment, with high success rates. Percutaneous release (PR) offers potential advantages regarding cost, procedure time, and recovery, although its effectiveness remains debated in different clinical settings. This study compares outcomes, complications, and resource use between PR and OS in a Swedish hospital setting where PR was newly introduced.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study including 110 patients treated for TF between 2018 and 2020 at the Department of Orthopaedics, Falu Regional Hospital, Falun, Sweden. Fifty fingers underwent PR and 94 fingers were treated with OS. PR was performed by two surgeons with procedure-specific expertise corresponding to level 1 and 2, respectively. The primary outcome was elimination of triggering, evaluated through follow-up visits or phone interviews at a median of 39.5 months (interquartile range 13) post-treatment. Secondary outcomes included complications, additional treatments, DASH scores, extension deficits, and estimated treatment costs.
resultsTriggering was resolved in 26/50 (52%) fingers treated with PR and 87/94 (93%) treated with OS (p < 0.001). Secondary interventions were required in 19 (38%) PR cases versus 2 (2%) in the OS group. No major complications (e.g. neurovascular or tendon injury) were reported. Minor transient symptoms (e.g. tenderness, scar pain) were reported by 8% of PR patients and 6% of OS patients. Estimated treatment cost per patient was 53 USD for PR and 138 USD for OS. Despite lower effectiveness, 69% of PR patients indicated willingness to undergo the same procedure again, compared to 97% in the OS group.
conclusionsWhile percutaneous release of the A1 pulley is safe, it was significantly less effective in eliminating triggering compared to open surgery. The procedure might be more technically demanding than previously assumed. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify its cost-effectiveness in different clinical settings, e.g. when performed by less experienced surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. CLINICAL
trial registrationEthical Review Board of Region Dalarna, Dnr 2020-07205, dated February 17, 2021.
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.