Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 17866

Original article / research
Year : 2018 | Month : July | Volume : 12 | Issue : 7 | Page : RC05 - RC08

Trigger Finger: A Prospective Randomised Control Trial Comparing Percutaneous Release versus Open Release

Niraj Ranjeet, Krishna Sapkota, Pabin Thapa, Pratyenta Raj Onta, Krishna Wahegoankar, Upendra Jung Thapa, Himanshu Shah

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Kaski, Nepal. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Kaski, Nepal. 3. Lecturer, Department of Orthopaedics, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Kaski, Nepal. 4. Lecturer, Department of Orthopaedics, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Kaski, Nepal. 5. Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Kaski, Nepal. 6. Lecturer, Department of Orthopaedics, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Kaski, Nepal. 7. Resident, Department of Orthopaedics, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Kaski, Nepal.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Niraj Ranjeet,
Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara-1344, Kaski, Nepal.
E-mail: ranjitniraj@yahoo.com

Abstract

Introduction: Trigger Finger (TF) is frequently encountered problem by an orthopaedic surgeon which if not managed causes pain, discomfort and disability in hand function. Patientís presents with pain at Metacarpo-phalangeal (MCP) or Proximal Inter-phalangeal (PIP) joint or clicking of the thumb, ring or long fingers. It is commonly caused by mismatch between the flexor sheath and the flexor tendon, which may be because of enlargement of the tendon or thickening of the fibrous flexor sheath of the 1st annular pulley.

Aim: To compare percutaneous release with that of open surgery in terms of its effectiveness in releasing the A1 pulley and their complications and also to determine if the results are comparable with those observed in other studies.

Materials and Methods: From January to December 2016, 56 patients presented to Manipal Teaching Hospital, Kaski, Nepal, with diagnosis of TF, were blindly randomised to two groups with 28 patients and 30 fingers each. One group was treated with percutaneous release while the other group was treated with open release. All the patients were followed up in OPD on two days, two weeks and eight weeks and were evaluated for postoperative pain, presence of infection, persistence or recurrence of triggering, presence of digital nerve injury and finger range of motion.

Results: There was no statistical difference between the two groups with regard to the above parameters. Although, there was a trend to earlier return to full activities of daily living and full range of motion in the percutaneous group and also the complication rates were low and without any surgical scar, the difference was insignificant compared to the open release group.

Conclusion: The present study recommend that both the open and percutaneous release is equally effective in treating TFs. Depending on the surgeonís preference and experience the surgeon may opt to choose any of the surgical procedure for his patients.

Keywords

Open release technique, Percutaneous release group, Stenosing tenosynovitis

How to cite this article :

Niraj Ranjeet, Krishna Sapkota, Pabin Thapa, Pratyenta Raj Onta, Krishna Wahegoankar, Upendra Jung Thapa, et al.. TRIGGER FINGER: A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL COMPARING PERCUTANEOUS RELEASE VERSUS OPEN RELEASE. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research [serial online] 2018 July [cited: 2018 Jul 23 ]; 12:RC05-RC08. Available from
http://jcdr.net/back_issues.asp?issn=0973-709x&year=2018&month=July&volume=12&issue=7&page=RC05-RC08&id=11771

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2018/34100.11771

Date of Submission: Oct 04, 2017
Date of Peer Review: Oct 28, 2017
Date of Acceptance: Nov 01, 2017
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2017

FINANCIAL OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS: None.

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2016: 132.37
  • SCOPUS
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • EBSCOhost
  • Embase & EMbiology
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com