ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2027
Cost-Effectiveness of Contemporary Trigger Finger Treatment Strategies: A Medicare Payer Perspective.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2027. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Trigger finger is typically managed with corticosteroid injections followed by surgical release if injections fail. Office-based ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release (USGPR) has emerged as a contemporary alternative that provides definitive surgical treatment in office settings, potentially eliminating both the recurrence risk of injections and the facility costs of traditional surgery. However, USGPR device costs and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain. Prior cost-effectiveness analyses do not include USGPR as a comparator and use reimbursement data from 2016 and earlier that may not reflect contemporary payment structures. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of contemporary trigger finger treatment strategies, including office-based USGPR, from a Medicare payer perspective using current 2025 reimbursement data and determined device cost thresholds at which USGPR becomes cost-effective. Methods: A decision-tree cost-effectiveness analysis was performed over a 1-year time horizon comparing five strategies: up to one, two, or three corticosteroid injections followed by facility-based open A1 pulley release if needed; immediate facility-based open release; and immediate office-based USGPR. Costs were derived from 2025 Medicare reimbursement data. Effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life-years. Deterministic, threshold, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The three-injection strategy was most cost-effective, with expected costs of $513 and net monetary benefit of $39,687 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated this strategy remained cost-effective in 100% of 10,000 simulations. At the base case device cost of $800, office-based USGPR was most expensive at $1,577. However, threshold analyses demonstrated that USGPR would become cost-effective at device costs below $232 relative to the three-injection strategy and below $519 relative to immediate facility-based open release. Conclusions: Offering up to three corticosteroid injections before surgical release represents the most cost-effective contemporary strategy for trigger finger management from a current Medicare payer perspective. At current device costs, office-based USGPR is not cost-effective, but substantial opportunity exists for this technique to become cost competitive as device costs decline. Type of study/level of evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis II.
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.