Percutaneous Trigger Finger Release Research Articles

O24: Triggering Change: Evaluating Minimally Invasive Techniques in the Pandemic-Era Hand Surgery in Malaysia

Abstract Aims This study aimed to compare outcomes of open surgical release versus ultrasound-guided and anatomical landmark-guided percutaneous release techniques for trigger finger treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic (year 2020-2022) at a single centre in Malaysia. Methods A retrospective review was conducted for 44 patients (94 digits) who underwent open surgical release (OS, n=52 digits), ultrasound-guided percutaneous release (UPR, n=30 digits), or anatomical landmark-guided percutaneous release (APR, n=12 digits) for trigger finger from 2020-2022. Outcomes assessed included post-operative pain, triggering recurrence, time to return to work/activities, patient satisfaction, and complications. Results Patients undergoing percutaneous release had expedited return to work/activities (3 days) compared to open surgery (20 days) (p<0.0001). No UPR/APR patients reported persistent pain at 3 months versus 13.5% of OS patients. Recurrence rates were comparable between modalities (1.9% vs 2.4%). Patient satisfaction was similar across OS/UPR/APR groups (4.4 vs 4.3 vs 4.4). Complication risks were lower with percutaneous techniques. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, percutaneous trigger finger release facilitated swifter rehabilitation and reduced hospital visits versus open surgery. The percutaneous approaches demonstrated clear benefits especially relevant for strained healthcare systems, including neater post-operative recovery, diminished long-term discomfort, and lower complication risks. Percutaneous release has considerable advantages and merits wider embrace.

Percutaneous release of trigger finger and its functional outcome

Background: An overview of percutaneous release for trigger finger and its functional outcomes. Methods: The present prospective controlled analytical study was conducted after taking approval from center human ethical committee. A written and informed consent was obtained. There were 50 patients who reported to outpatient department (OPD) with symptoms suggestive of trigger thumb/ finger, were subjected to the study. Results: Most of the patients belonged to the age group of 41-50 years. Majority of patients were females (56%) and males were (44%). Most of the patients had the right 1st digit involved (32%), followed by left 1st and right 3rd digit (18% each). Before the release of affected digit, 56% were grade 3, 26% were grade 4 and only 18% were grade 1. Complete resolution immediately after the procedure was seen in 82% cases. Pre procedure, mean VAS of 8.4 reduced to mean VAS of 6.2 immediate post procedure. At 48 hours post procedure, mean VAS of 3.06 and mean VAS of 1.12 was seen at 1-month post procedure period. At 3 months post procedure, mean VAS of 0.42. 94% cases had no complications. Conclusions: Percutaneous release of trigger finger is a safe and effective procedure associated with favorable functional outcomes. It provides an alternative treatment option for patients who have failed conservative management or prefer a minimally invasive approach.

Retrograde Percutaneous Release of Trigger Finger or Thumb Using Sono-Instruments®: Detailed Technique, Pearls, and Pitfalls.

Percutaneous release is a common treatment option for trigger finger stenosing tenosynovitis. While surgical and conservative treatments are available, percutaneous techniques offer several advantages, including faster recovery time, reduced complications, and simultaneous treatment of multiple trigger fingers. The sono-instrument is a minimally invasive device designed for surgical release of the A1 pulley in adults. The device is efficient and safe, and in addition, several design features enhance the visibility of the instrument under ultrasound imaging. The technique is truly percutaneous, as the whole operation is done through a single needle puncture. This minimizes postoperative discomfort and allows an immediate return to daily living and professional activities. The technique can be performed in an outpatient clinic under local anesthesia. The learning curve is quick; however, surgeons must acquire experience in hand sonography to master this new form of surgery. The aim of this article is to provide an in-depth exposition of the technical nuances, pearls, and pitfalls of this novel retrograde percutaneous release method. To our knowledge, this is the first retrograde truly percutaneous release technique yet described, facilitated by the novel Sono-Instruments®.

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

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.

Bowstringing after percutaneous trigger finger release surgery: A case report

Objective: To evaluate percutaneous finger release surgery. Subjects and methods: Reconstructive surgery and suturing of the metatarsal capsule, suture of the ulnar collateral ligament of the hand interphalangeal joint in a 20-year-old female patient with arcuate complications, tendon adhesions and interphalangeal sub-dislocation right hand after surgery to release the thumb of the right hand through the skin. Results: One year after secondary pulley reconstruction, the patient relieves pain, returns to normal life, writes and draws well. MHQ scale (Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire) scale: 80-95. In conclusion, there are many advantages to percutaneous trigger finger release surgery, which is growing in popularity, but it should be done by experienced surgeons, and thumbs are not recommended because serious complications that impair hand function are possible.

Tendon Sheath Incision for Surgical Treatment of Trigger Finger.

Open trigger finger release is an elective surgical procedure that serves as the gold standard treatment for trigger digits. The aim of this procedure is to release the A1 pulley in a setting in which the pulley is completely visible, ultimately allowing the flexor tendons that were previously impinged on to glide more easily through the tendon sheath. Although A1-or the first annular pulley-is the site of triggering in nearly all cases, alternative sites include A2, A3, and the palmar aponeurosis1. Typically, the surgical procedure can be conducted in an outpatient setting and can vary in duration from a few minutes to half an hour. The surgical procedure involves the patient lying in the supine position with the operative hand positioned to the side. A small incision, ranging from 1 to 1.5 cm, is made on the volar side of the hand, just proximal to the A1 pulley in the skin crease in order to minimize scarring. Once the underlying neurovascular structures are exposed, the A1 pulley is released longitudinally at least to the level of the A2 pulley, followed by decompression of the flexor tendons that were previously impinged on. In order to confirm the release, the patient is asked to flex and extend the affected finger. The wound is irrigated and closed once the release is confirmed by both the patient and surgeon. Aside from an open release, trigger finger can be treated nonoperatively with use of splinting and corticosteroid injection. Alternative operative treatments include a percutaneous release, which involves the use of a needle to release the A1 pulley2. Trigger finger can initially be treated nonoperatively. If unsuccessful, surgical intervention is considered the ultimate remedy2. Because of their efficacious nature, corticosteroid injections are indicated preoperatively, particularly in non-diabetic patients3. Splinting is often an appropriate treatment option in patients who wish to avoid a corticosteroid injection1. However, if nonoperative treatment modalities fail to resolve pain and symptoms, surgical intervention is indicated2. In comparison with a percutaneous trigger finger release, an open release provides enhanced exposure and may be safer with respect to avoiding iatrogenic neurovascular injury2. However, in a randomized controlled trial, Gilberts et al. found no difference in the rates of recurrence when comparing open versus percutaneous trigger finger release4. With reported success rates ranging from 90% to 100%, the open release of the A1 pulley is considered a common procedure associated with minimal complications2. Complications of the procedure were assessed in a retrospective analysis of 43 patients who underwent 78 open trigger releases performed by 1 surgeon. In that study, the authors reported a minor complication rate of 28% and a major complication rate of 3%5. Specifically, the 2 major complications noted by the authors were a synovial fistula and a proximal interphalangeal joint arthrofibrosis. In a larger study that included 543 patients who underwent 795 open trigger releases, the authors reported a minor complication rate of 9.6% and major complication rate of 2.4%6. Furthermore, the most common complications involved persistent stiffness, swelling, or pain. In that analysis, the authors suggested that sedation, male gender, and general anesthesia may be associated with greater risk6. At the discretion of the surgeon, a longitudinal, transverse, or oblique incision is made directly on top of the tendon at the level of the metacarpophalangeal joint, which is the preferred incision site because it provides maximal accessibility to the A1 pulley.Local anesthesia is preferred because it allows the patient and surgeon to confirm the release immediately.If conducting an open trigger release on the thumb, the surgeon should identify and protect the radial digital nerve, which courses directly over the A1 pulley. MCP = metacarpophalangeal.

Percutaneous Release of Trigger Finger by Needle Technique

Percutaneous Release of Trigger Finger by Needle Technique

Evaluation of percutaneous release of trigger finger

Evaluation of percutaneous release of trigger finger

Outcomes of corticosteroid injection and percutaneous release in treatment of trigger finger at tertiary hospital of Eastern Nepal.

Introduction: Trigger finger or stenosing tenosynovitis is a common cause of painful fingers and thumb that result in painful triggering, snapping or locking of fingers on flexion and extension of involved digit. Available treatment options for this condition are NSAID, splints, intralesional steroid injection, percutaneous release and open release of tendon sheath.
 Objectives: To study the clinical and functional outcomes and complications of corticosteroid injection and percutaneous release in management of trigger finger.
 Methodology: In this prospective study, sixty patients who presented with Grade 2 to Grade 3 trigger finger were placed into two groups. Group A(30 patients) were treated with intralesional steroid (40 mg of methylprednisolone) injection. Group B (30 patients) underwent percutaneous surgical release of affected tendon sheath. Both group of patients were treated in outpatient department. Patients of both groups were then asked to follow on scheduled time interval of two-week, six-week, three-months and six-months of period and their progress were recorded.
 Results: The baseline VAS score before intervention in group A (5.82) and group B (6.12) was statistically significant. In group B there was significant improvement of VAS score till 6 months of follow up. However, in group A there was significant improvement of VAS score by 3 months of follow-up, but by end of 6 months it again raised to 2.14. Yet it was far better than baseline VAS score.
 Conclusion: In our study both corticosteroid injection and percutaneous trigger finger release were found to be much effective in management of trigger finger.

Ultrasound-guided microinvasive trigger finger release technique using an 18-gauge needle with a blade at the tip: A prospective study.

Open surgical trigger finger release has limited success and the risk of complications; however, percutaneous techniques offer a successful alternative. There is limited understanding of the success of percutaneous trigger finger release. To prospectively evaluate the functional outcomes of patients with Green classification Grade 2 to 4 trigger finger treated with an ultrasound-guided microinvasive trigger finger release using a special 18-gauge needle with a blade at the tip. Prospective, case-series study. This study took place at an academic institution by one sports medicine physician (R.E.C.) with subspecialty training and certification in musculoskeletal ultrasound. Sixty patients (79 cases) met criteria and agreed to participate in this study; 19 patients had multiple fingers treated. Average patient age was 62.8 years (SD 10.2). Average trigger finger severity diagnosis was Grade 3. Patients were treated with an ultrasound-guided microinvasive trigger finger release using a special 18-gauge needle with a blade at the tip. Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), numerical rating scale (NRS), and Nirschl scores were captured preprocedure, at various time points, and at final follow-up. Changes between preprocedure and final follow-up were analyzed by paired t test (p < .05). Differences were also analyzed between finger, grade level, and gender by repeated measures analyses of variance (p < .05). No adverse events were documented perioperatively or postoperatively. Average follow-up time was 18.4months (SD 4.6). At final follow-up, 100% of patients reported no recurrence of catching/locking, 97% had complete resolution of symptoms and significant improvement in QuickDASH scores, and 99% required no further treatment. All measurements showed a decrease in pain and symptoms over time. The improvements in QuickDASH score, NRS, and Nirschl scale and the resolution of mechanical symptoms were all statistically significant. Ultrasound-guided release using the 18-gauge needle with a blade provides significant functional improvement and full resolution of mechanical symptoms with minimal adverse events.

A cadaveric assessment of percutaneous trigger finger release with 15\xb0 stab knife: its effectiveness and complications

Percutaneous release of the A1 pulley has been introduced as a therapeutic approach for trigger fingers and is suggested as an effective and safe alternative, where conservative treatments fail. The aim of the current study was to determine if percutaneous release with a 15° stab knife can effectively result in acceptable efficacy and lower complication rate.MethodsIn the present study, the percutaneous release of the A1 pulley was evaluated by percutaneous release using a 15° stab knife in 20 fresh-frozen cadaver hands (10 cadavers). One hundred fingers were finally included in the present study. The success rate of A1 pulley release as well as the complications of this method including digital vascular injury, A2 pulley injury, and superficial flexor tendon injury was evaluated, and finally, the data were analyzed by the SPSS software.ResultsThe results showed a success rate of 75% for A1 pulley release in four fingers, followed by eleven fingers (90%) and eighty-five fingers (100%). Therefore, the A1 pulley was found to be completely released in eighty-five fingers (100%). Overall, the mean of A1 pulley release for these fingers was determined as 97.9%, indicating that percutaneous trigger finger release can be an effective technique using a 15° stab knife. Furthermore, our findings revealed no significant difference in the amount of A1 pulley release in each of the fingers in the right and left hands. Additionally, 17 fingers developed superficial scrape in flexor tendons, while 83 fingers showed no flexor tendons injuries and no other injuries (i.e., vascular, digital nerve, and A2 pulley injuries).ConclusionsPercutaneous release of the A1 pulley using a 15° stab knife was contributed to acceptable efficacy and a relatively good safety in the cadaveric model.

Randomized Controlled Trial on Combined Percutaneous Release and Steroid Injection Versus Percutaneous Release Alone for Trigger Finger in Adults

Introduction. Trigger finger is one of the most common causes of hand pain and disability. Surgical treatment consists of release of the A-1 pulley by open or percutaneous techniques. Many authors have noted that percutaneous release is convenient and cost-effective with a low complication rate. Only few studies have published results on combination of percutaneous release and steroid injection.&#x0D; Objective. To compare the differences of outcomes in adults with trigger finger treated with combination of percutaneous release and corticosteroid injection to those treated with percutaneous release alone&#x0D; Methods. We included all patients older than 18 years old in the UP-PGH Department of Orthopedics with a diagnosis of trigger finger who have consented to participate in this study. They were randomized into two treatment groups. One group was treated with percutaneous release only and the other group was treated with combined percutaneous release and corticosteroid injection. Outcomes measured were total active motion (TAM), postoperative pain, time to return-to-work, patient satisfaction, and complications.&#x0D; Results. Post-procedure, both groups showed significant improvement in motion of the fingers (p = 0.034) and pain relief (p = 0.001). TAM scores of the combination group were better compared to the control at all time intervals (p = 0.03, 0.008, 0.004, 0.019) and better pain VAS scores in the 1st week (p = 0.009). Patients who received the combination treatment showed a trend toward better patient satisfaction, shorter duration of post-release pain and earlier return-to-work.&#x0D; Conclusion. The addition of corticosteroid injections to percutaneous release of trigger finger significantly improves TAM and pain VAS scores.

Sonographic Location of Distal A1 Pulley by Means of a Bony Acoustic Landmark on the Proximal Phalanx: An Anatomic Study

To identify the anatomic relationship between the distal extent of the A1 pulley and the distalmost insertion point of the palmar plate into the base of the proximal phalanx at a metaphyseal bony ridge, the "P1 peak" (P1P), which is a bony acoustic landmark easily identifiable on sonography of the finger. We studied 48 fingers (no thumbs) from 12 fresh frozen cadavers with high-resolution ultrasound. A 20-gauge hypodermic needle was directed perpendicular to the long axis of the tendon sheath along a plumb line drawn at the level of the bony flare of the proximal metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction of the proximal phalanx, or the P1P, under high-resolution ultrasound guidance. Dissection was then performed, and the distance of the needle barrel and the actual distance of the P1P from the distal edge of the A1 pulley were recorded. The study demonstrated that accurate placement of the needle within 1 mm of the actual P1P was possible using ultrasound guidance and that the P1P was within 1 mm of the distal edge of the actual A1 pulley in all specimens studied. In all the specimens studied, we found that the P1P may be used as a clearly identifiable sonographic reference landmark to identify the distal extent of the A1 pulley. Using the P1P landmark as a guide to judge the completeness of ultrasound-guided percutaneous trigger finger release may reduce the risks of incomplete distal release and inadvertent release of the A2 pulley.

Comparing the Corticosteroid Injection and A1 Pulley Percutaneous Release in Treatment of Trigger Finger: A Clinical Trial.

Background: Primary treatment of trigger digits is conservative including stretching, night splinting and combination of heat and ice. When these methods fail, invasive methods such as corticosteroid injection, percutaneous release and open surgery are used. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of two outpatient methods of percutaneous trigger finger release (PTFR) and corticosteroid injection (CI). Methods: This study is a randomized clinical trial that was performed with 6-month follow up. A total of 83 patients with trigger finger treated either with corticosteroid injection (n:40) or percutaneous release of the A1 pulley (n:43) were enrolled in this study. Demographic data were recorded before intervention. Pain score (VAS criterion), disease stage (Quinnell criteria), patient satisfaction and complications such as paresthesia, scarring, and stiffness (decrease in the range of motion) were recorded after the intervention. We used SPSS program (statistical package for the social science SPSS version 16) to perform the analysis. Results: There were 18 male (21.7%) and 65 female (78.3%) patients, whose mean age was 52.54 ± 11.45 (28-85) years. There was a significant difference between the degree of pain at the time of the third, sixth weeks and sixth months in two groups. The degree of pain was lower in the CI group in the third and sixth weeks but it was lower in the PTFR group in the sixth month. Satisfaction of the patients in the sixth month was significantly higher in the PTFR group. The incidence of stiffness was also significantly lower in the PTFR group in the sixth month. Conclusions: Patients in PTFR group had greater recovery and satisfaction level and lower recurrence rate and pain. Therefore PTFR may be used as a substitute for CI in the treatment of trigger finger from the beginning especially in patients who do not want to have open surgery.

Percutaneous release of trigger finger: An easy and safe procedure

Introduction: Trigger finger is caused by irritation of the flexor tendon as it slides through the fibro-osseous sheath. Its surgical options include open and percutaneous minimally invasive methods. Aim: This study is aimed at elucidating the efficacy of percutaneous release of trigger finger. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective study carried out in our institution Shri Guru Ram Rai Medical College Dehradun, India over a period of 2 years from June 2015 to august 2017. This study includes 68 trigger finger and thumb of 58 patients between 28 to 64 years. Here percutaneous trigger finger release of A1 pulley was done with the help of 18G hypodermic needle under local anaesthetic cover as a day care procedure. Subsequently the patient was followed up at least for 3 months. Results: Symptoms were resolved completely in all patients. None had any serious complication. Only a few patients had minor temporary wound related complicationsand temporary stiffness. Conclusions: Percutaneous release of trigger finger is effective, convenient, cost effective day care surgery without any significant complications in skilled hands. Keywords: Trigger finger, Percutaneous.

Outcome of percutaneous trigger finger release technique using a 20-gauge hypodermic needle

BackgroundTrigger finger or stenosing tenosynovitis is a disproportion between the volume of the tendon sheath and its contents. This disproportion prevents gliding of the tendon as it moves freely through the annular pulley. The technique of percutaneous release of the annular pulley for trigger finger has been described well in the literature, which has undergone several modifications, like use of hypodermic needle, tenotome or specially designed knives. MethodWe performed percutaneous trigger finger release using a 20-gauge hypodermic needle to know the outcome and efficacy of the technique post release. A Prospective cohort study was conducted in 80 consecutive trigger fingers of 67 patients who were treated by percutaneous release using 20-gauge hypodermic needle. Quinell’s grading system was used to quantify severity of triggering and pain was assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after the procedure. Patients were evaluated based on these two parameters at timely interval and final outcome was assessed at the end of one year. ResultsOut of 80 digits treated, most of the subjects were in the age group 40–50 years (39.07%). Most common grade of trigger finger observed was Grade 3 (60%) followed by Grade 4 (30%) with VAS score of 8 (46%) followed by VAS score of 7 (24%) before release. At a year follow-up 95% of patients improved to grade 0 and mean VAS score was 0.44. Three patients developed scar tenderness, which gradually subsided by analgesics and physiotherapy with no other major complications. ConclusionOur technique of percutaneous release of trigger digit with 20 G needle is effective and can be performed safely with ease. It is cost efficient and has a short learning curve with great acceptance being an outpatient procedure.

Comparison of functional outcome between local steroid injection and percutaneous release of trigger finger

The best modality for management of correctable triggering of fingers has remained controversial. This study focuses on the outcome of 2 minimally invasive techniques, the percutaneous release of A1 pulley and the local Corticosteroid injection. Aim of this Prospective study is to compare the functional outcome in terms of pain, remnant and recurrent triggering over a period of 6 months, in patients of trigger finger, treated with percutaneous release and steroid injection. For this study, 100 patients of grade 2 and 3 triggering of fingers underwent percutaneous release or steroid injection (50 each) randomly, and they were assessed repeatedly over a follow up period of 6 months. The analysis was done using a Green’s grading, Roles-Maudsley score and VAS Score. Results were analysed with graphical representation. Percutaneous release gave an excellent relief from triggering with no recurrence, and 98% success rate. Steroid injection had only 56% success rate with 22% recurrence at the end of 6 months (higher with grade 3). The roles Maudsley score was almost equal at the end of 6 months, with 98% patients having good and excellent results in both groups. Pain relief was immediate after the steroid injection but there was a relapse in a few patients by the end of 6 months (14% developed VAS Score 4 and higher). It took 1 month for pain to get relieved in the percutaneous group, but the relief was well sustained (96% had absolute relief in percutaneous group vs 66% in steroid group). The percutaneous release should be the preferred modality in all grade 2 and 3 trigger fingers with adequate analgesia for the 1st week post- procedure.

Efficacy of percutaneous release of trigger finger

Trigger finger is one of the most common cause of pain and disability of the hand. This condition results in painful catching or popping of the involved flexor tendon as the patient flexes and extends the digit. This study aimed to test the efficiency of percutaneous release in the treatment of Trigger Finger in 100 patients. Percutaneous Release of A1 pulley of the affected digit was performed using 18G needle under Local Anaesthesia in the Out Patient Department. Results were graded using Quinnel’s criteria as excellent if there was no pain after the procedure, good if pain occurred with heavy use or poor if there was no reduction in pain. Excellent result was achieved in 83 patients while good results achieved in 13 patients who were satisfied and were able to return to their work the next day of the procedure. In 4 patients the procedure failed to relieve the symptoms and there was some degree of residual triggering and pain left. At 1 week follow up only 9 patients had some degree of pain and stiffness which had completely resolved on taking medication and there were no complaints at 3 months follow up. Percutaneous release is a safe, effective and cheap procedure, providing immediate relief from symptoms in the treatment of trigger finger which is well tolerated and has a low rate of complications when done by an experienced Orthopaedic surgeon.

Effectiveness Evaluation of percutaneous Trigger Finger Release

Effectiveness Evaluation of percutaneous Trigger Finger Release

Comperative outcomes of the patients undergoing percutaneous and open trigger finger release

The aim of this study was to compare patients who underwent open or percutaneous trigger finger release in terms of clinical outcomes, time to return to activities, and recurrence. The records of patients who underwent percutaneous and open trigger finger release between 2012 and 2018 at two different hospitals in the same city were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: 33 patients who underwent percutaneous trigger finger release (Group PR) and 48 patients who underwent open release of A1 pulley (Group OR). The clinical classification of cases was done according to the Quinnell classification. The functional outcomes of the patients were evaluated according to the Quick DASH scale. The mean age of the patients was 55.95 ± 11.73 (27–82) years; 71.6% (n = 58) were female. The left side was involved in 56.8% (n = 46) patients, and 81 patients underwent percutaneous or open trigger finger release with a mean follow-up duration of 37.40 ± 16.22 (12–72) months. The time to start daily activities was shorter in Group PR than in Group OR, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). A comparison of the upper extremity functional scores between the two groups revealed no statistically significant difference (PR; 15.21 ± 6.17, PO; 12.99 ± 6.89, p = 0.142). Although the rate of complications was higher in Group OR, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (PR; 12.12%, PO: 20.83%, p = 0.217). Percutaneous trigger finger release can be preferred in adult trigger finger surgery due to increased risks regarding wound healing and infections associated with advanced age, presence of diabetes and inflammatory arthritis, and the expectation of rapid return to daily activities.