Cochrane · systematic review · CD009860
Surgery for trigger finger
Fiorini, HJ, Tamaoki, MJ, Lenza, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
MusculoskeletalAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
63
current version
GRADE rated
27
No studies
36
Included studies
NR
No studies 36 · 57.1%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 21 · 33.3%Low 6 · 9.5%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Open surgery versus steroid injection for treating trigger finger
Population: patients with trigger finger
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms (after one or more injections) Open surgery vs steroid injection | RR 1.48 [0.79, 2.76] | 2 studies · 270 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pain Proportion with pain on the palm of the hand Open surgery vs steroid injection | RR 3.69 [1.99, 6.85] | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Function Not measured Open surgery vs steroid injection | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant global assessment of success Not measured Open surgery vs steroid injection | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence Open surgery vs steroid injection | RR 0.17 [0.09, 0.33] | 2 studies · 270 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events (infection, tendon or pulley injury, flare, cutaneous discomfort, fat necrosis) Open surgery vs steroid injection | RR 1.02 [0.57, 1.84] | 2 studies · 270 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Neurovascular injury Open surgery vs steroid injection | RR 2.17 [0.7, 6.77] | 2 studies · 270 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Percutaneous surgery versus steroid injection for treating trigger finger
Population: patients with trigger finger
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms (after 1 or more injections) Percutaneous surgery vs steroid injection | RR 2.11 [0.31, 14.51] | 2 studies · 191 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pain (Visual analogue scale: 0 to 10 points) Percutaneous surgery vs steroid injection | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 222 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Function Not measured Percutaneous surgery vs steroid injection | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant global assessment of success Not measured Percutaneous surgery vs steroid injection | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence Percutaneous surgery vs steroid injection | RR 0.57 [0.21, 1.59] | 5 studies · 392 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse events (infection, partial loss of movement, tendon or −0 injury, dysaesthesia, and skin atrophy or hypopigmentation) Percutaneous surgery vs steroid injection | RR 1.58 [0.91, 2.75] | 5 studies · 392 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Neurovascular injury Percutaneous surgery vs steroid injection | RR 0.35 [0.04, 3.29] | 2 studies · 191 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Open surgery versus steroid injection plus hyaluronic acid injection guided by ultrasound for treating trigger finger
Population: patients with trigger finger
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms Open surgery vs steroid injection plus hyaluronic acid injection guided by ultrasound | RR 1.35 [0.98, 1.85] | 1 study · 30 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pain (short‐term) Not measured Open surgery vs steroid injection plus hyaluronic acid injection guided by ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Function Not measured Open surgery vs steroid injection plus hyaluronic acid injection guided by ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant global assessment of success Not measured Open surgery vs steroid injection plus hyaluronic acid injection guided by ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence Open surgery vs steroid injection plus hyaluronic acid injection guided by ultrasound | RR 0.14 [0.01, 2.55] | 1 study · 30 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events (partial loss of movement, algodystrophic syndrome) Open surgery vs steroid injection plus hyaluronic acid injection guided by ultrasound | RR 3 [0.35, 25.68] | 1 study · 30 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Neurovascular injury Not measured Open surgery vs steroid injection plus hyaluronic acid injection guided by ultrasound | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection compared to steroid injection for trigger finger
Population: patients with trigger finger
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms (after 1 or more injections) Percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection vs steroid injection | RR 1.51 [1.21, 1.9] | 1 study · 127 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pain (short‐term) Not measured Percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection vs steroid injection | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Function Not measured Percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection vs steroid injection | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant global assessment of success Not measured Percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection vs steroid injection | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence Not measured Percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection vs steroid injection | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events (infection, partial loss of movement) Percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection vs steroid injection | RR 0.92 [0.13, 6.36] | 1 study · 127 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Neurovascular injury Percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection vs steroid injection | RR 0.92 [0.06, 14.46] | 1 study · 127 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Percutaneous surgery versus open surgery for treating trigger finger
Population: patients with trigger finger
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms Percutaneous surgery vs open surgery | RR 1 [0.97, 1.02] | 5 studies · 429 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pain (1 to 6 scale) Percutaneous surgery vs open surgery | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Function Not measured Percutaneous surgery vs open surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant global assessment of success Not measured Percutaneous surgery vs open surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence Percutaneous surgery vs open surgery | RR 0.28 [0.01, 6.83] | 4 studies · 397 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events (infection, partial loss of movement, tendon or pulley injury, oedema or inflammation or hematoma, adherence) Percutaneous surgery vs open surgery | RR 0.8 [0.17, 3.68] | 5 studies · 429 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Neurovascular injury Percutaneous surgery vs open surgery | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 397 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endoscopic surgery versus open surgery for treating trigger finger
Population: patients with trigger finger
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms Endoscopic surgery vs open surgery | RR 1 [0.98, 1.02] | 1 study · 231 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pain (short‐term) Not measured Endoscopic surgery vs open surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Function Not measured Endoscopic surgery vs open surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant global assessment of success Not measured Endoscopic surgery vs open surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence Not measured Endoscopic surgery vs open surgery | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events (infection, dysaesthesia) Endoscopic surgery vs open surgery | RR 2.74 [0.74, 10.06] | 1 study · 231 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Neurovascular injury Endoscopic surgery vs open surgery | RR 3.08 [0.13, 74.79] | 1 study · 231 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease compared to open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin for trigger finger
Population: patients with trigger finger
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain (short‐term) Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Function (DASH score: 0 to 100 points) Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Participant global assessment of success Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Neurovascular injury Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease compared to open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin for trigger finger
Population: patients with trigger finger
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain (short‐term) Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Function (DASH score: 0 to 100 points) Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Participant global assessment of success Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Neurovascular injury Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by longitudinal incision of the skin | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease compared to open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease for trigger finger
Population: patients with trigger finger
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Resolution of symptoms Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pain (short‐term) Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Function (DASH score: 0 to 100 points) Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Participant global assessment of success Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Recurrence Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Neurovascular injury Not measured Open surgery by transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease vs open surgery by transverse incision of the skin about 2–3 mm distally from distal palmar crease | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |