Abstract
BackgroundTo compare the efficacy and safety of the USG-guided vs blind pulley release (PR) for Trigger Finger by performing a meta-analysis of all relevant studies in the published literature. MethodsA thorough and methodical search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was carried out. Review Manager Software (RevMan) 5.4.1 was used to analyze the extracted data, and the results were displayed as forest plots with matching 95 % confidence intervals. ResultsThe primary efficacy outcome i.e. residual triggering was significantly lower in USG-guided PR as compared to blind PR with a risk ratio of 0.16 (95 % CI 0.03–0.87), p = 0.03. The primary safety outcome i.e., percentage of complications was lower in the USG-guided procedure group, although the result was not statistically significant with a risk ratio of 0.25 (95 % CI 0.05–1.16), p = 0.08 with I2 of 0 %. The operation time was longer in the USG-guided PR as compared to the blind procedure, although the difference was not statistically significant with a mean difference of 5.36 (95 % CI: −3.73, 14.46), p = 0.25. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score at 4 weeks was significantly lower in USG-guided PR versus blind PR with a mean difference of −0.40 (95 % CI: −0.68, −0.33), p = 0.004. ConclusionWhen compared to blind PR, ultrasound-guided A1 PR for trigger finger was proven to be a safer and more economical method.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call