A retrospective study comparing open and percutaneous trigger finger release in the Thai population

Abstract

Background: Over the years, open surgery has been the primary treatment for trigger finger, a prevalent issue among hand illnesses. There has been some resistance to the technique's routine use, despite the fact that the percutaneous release of triggers provides a quicker recovery than surgery. As a result, the study proposed that the percutaneous release technique outperforms open surgery. The objective of this study was to compares the trigger finger surgery's open and percutaneous releases in terms of short-term results. Methods: From 2014 to 2020, 166 patients who underwent open or percutaneous release surgery for the trigger finger at Naresuan University Hospital were the subjects of this retrospective analysis. For one, three, and six weeks, the initial characteristics and post-operative hemorrhage, digital nerve and artery injury, surgical site pain, inability to flex the finger, and other outcomes were compared. The visual analog scale (VAS) score and the impairments of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score were also compared between the two groups. Results: The age, sex, and number of patients in both groups were statistically comparable. Before the procedure, there was no difference between the groups in terms of DASH and VAS scores for pain; however, at six weeks, the percutaneous release group showed a substantial difference and low VAS scores. There were no differences between the groups in terms of consequences, including wound pain, damage to digital nerves and arteries, and others. Conclusion: Based on the patients' short-term outcomes, the study found that percutaneous release of the trigger finger is just as successful as traditional open surgery.