A randomized controlled trial comparing ketorolac and triamcinolone injections in adults with trigger digits

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Injections versus Steroid Injections in the Management of Upper and Lower Extremity Orthopedic Conditions: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although corticosteroid injections are an effective treatment for musculoskeletal pathologies, they may not be suitable for all patients. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who received NSAID and corticosteroid injections for various orthopedic conditions.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model for outcomes presented in three or more studies. Other studies were qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 28 articles with 2113 patients were included. A meta-analysis of five studies in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) between subacromial NSAID injections and corticosteroid injections at 1 month [weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.244; 95% CI, -1.232 to 0.745; I2, 94.5%]. For patients with knee osteoarthritis, a meta-analysis of three studies demonstrated that there was no significant difference between intraarticular NSAID injections and corticosteroid injections in pain VAS at 1 month (WMD 0.754; 95% CI, -0.413 to 1.921; I2, 90.2%) and 3 months (WMD-0.089; 95% CI, -0.345 to 0.166; I2, 0%). A review of the studies assessing pain outcomes for hip osteoarthritis, adhesive capsulitis, and plantar fasciitis showed no significant differences between the NSAID and corticosteroid groups.

CONCLUSION

NSAID injections may be safe and effective alternatives to steroid injections, especially in shoulder impingement syndrome and knee osteoarthritis.

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Absorbable and Nonabsorbable Sutures in A1 Pulley Release

BACKGROUND

Both absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures are used to correct palmar incisions or lacerations. Nonabsorbable sutures have been used without complications but require removal at a follow-up appointment. Alternatively, the use of absorbable sutures has increased in popularity as postoperative suture removal is not required but is associated with local immunological and inflammatory responses. In this study, we compared the scar quality and outcomes of nonabsorbable and absorbable sutures in A1 pulley release.

METHODS

Patients who underwent A1 pulley release were randomized to 1 of 2 suture materials. The Patient Scar Assessment Scale, Observer Scar Assessment Scale, Visual Analogue Scale, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were collected at 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Among the 41 patients included in the study, 23 were randomized to the nonabsorbable suture group, and 18 to the absorbable suture group.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two suture groups in the aforementioned assessments. Complication rates were higher in the nonabsorbable suture group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Notably, 1 case in the absorbable suture group had uncontrolled postoperative bleeding and required reoperation.

CONCLUSION

We found no significant difference between the two materials in terms of the Patient or Observer Scar Assessment Scales, overall complication rates, symptom scores, or pain scores. Therefore, the choice using absorbable or nonabsorbable can be guided by other factors such as physician or patient preference, availability, and cost.

The Effectiveness of Rehabilitation after Open Surgical Release for Trigger Finger: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether rehabilitation after surgery for trigger finger is effective. The aim of this study was to reveal its effectiveness for trigger finger.

METHODS

This study was a randomized, controlled trial that included patients who underwent operations for trigger fingers. The patients in the rehabilitation group had postoperative occupational therapy (OT) for 3 months, while the patients in the control group were not referred for rehabilitation but received advice for a range of motion exercises. We evaluated the severity of trigger finger, Disability of Arm-Shoulder-Hand (DASH) score, pain-visual analogue scale (VAS), grip strength, whether they gained a full range of motion (ROM), and complications before and after surgery.

RESULTS

Finally, 29 and 28 patients were included in the control and rehabilitation groups, respectively. At final follow-up, the DASH score, grip strength, and ROM were significantly improved in the rehabilitation group compared to that preoperatively. At final follow-up, pain was significantly improved in both groups from that preoperatively. There were no significant differences in the results, including the DASH score, grip strength, ROM and pain-VAS between the control and rehabilitation groups at the final follow-up. Subgroup analysis showed that there is a significant difference in the DASH score of patients doing housework or light work and those with a duration of symptoms >12 months between the control and rehabilitation groups at the final follow-up.

Sonographically controlled minimally-invasive A1 pulley release using a new guide instrument - a case series of 106 procedures in 64 patients

BACKGROUND

With percutaneous and minimally-invasive pulley release becoming more popular, safety and reliability of such minimally-invasive procedures remain a concern. Visualization of the technical steps by ultrasound suggests increased safety but shows the potential for harm to tendons, nerves and vessels without proper instrumentation. We present the results of implementing a sonographically guided minimally-invasive procedure in 106 trigger digits of 64 patients between 2018-2021.

METHODS

A guide instrument for use with a commercially available hook knife was developed and tested in 16 cadaver hands. Due to complication early in our clinical series this guide was modified in due course. A revised design of the guide has been in use since November 2019 with improved performance and safety.

RESULTS

One hundred six procedures in 64 patients were performed. After guide revision, we report a success rate of 97.3%. Complications after instrument revision include two cases of incomplete pulley release and one case of inadvertent skin laceration. The majority of patients report returning to all strenuous activities within two weeks at most apart from four individuals with prolonged postoperative discomfort.

CONCLUSION

We present the results of the development and implementation of a novel guide instrument for use with a hook knife to treat trigger finger. Despite several limitations of this study, we show that sonographically controlled, minimally-invasive A1 pulley release can be performed safely and effectively with appropriate surgical instruments and practice.

A Cadaveric Study Examining the Accuracy of Wireless Hand-Held Guided Ultrasound Injections Versus Blind Injections in the Flexor Tendon Sheath

Purpose

Hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) is gaining popularity among clinicians. Although its use for procedural guidance could have several advantages in hand surgery, other surgeons may wonder about its added benefits. This cadaveric study aimed to examine the hypothesis of increased accuracy of wireless HHUS-guided injections versus that of blind injections into the flexor sheath.

Methods

Our series included 20 fresh cadaveric hands with 80 fingers randomly assigned to 2 groups. In group A, 10 hands were randomly assigned to receive a landmark injection and then received a blinded injection to the flexor tendon sheath (FTS). In group B, 10 hands were blinded in the same manner and received an ultrasound-guided injection with HHUS. Methylene blue was injected, and anatomic dissection was performed to evaluate the injection accuracy based on the dye's filling pattern in the FTS as stage I (no filling), stage II (<50% filling), and stage III (>50% filling). Statistical analysis was performed, and P <.05 indicated a significant difference.

Results

One finger was excluded because of severe Dupuytren contracture. In group A, 39 blind injections of the FTS were performed, with 82% (32/39) fingers achieving stage III filling. In group B, 40 ultrasound-guided FTS injections were performed, with 90% (36/40) of fingers achieving stage III filing. Our study did not reveal any superiority in accuracy when ultrasound guidance was used (P = .35).

Conclusions

Hand-held ultrasound-guided FTS injections were not more accurate than blind injections performed by an experienced hand surgeon. These findings suggest that blind injections can be used as routine practice when performed by experienced operators to treat trigger finger. However, the use of HHUS may offer other advantages in hand surgery practice.

Clinical relevance

Ultimately, choosing to perform HHUS-guided injection versus blind injection to treat trigger finger depends on the surgeon's experience and preference for a particular technique.

Comparison of the effect of ketorolac versus triamcinolone acetonide injections for the treatment of de Quervain's tenosynovitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Background

De Quervain’s disease is tenosynovitis of the first dorsal compartment causing severely painful radial-side wrist pain and impaired function. Steroids are effective in treating this condition due to their anti-inflammatory properties. However, this drug causes problems such as hypopigmentation, and is contradicted in diabetes mellitus patients. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) which are efficacious in shoulder pathology and not contraindicated in diabetics and can be used to avoid the local effects of steroids could be beneficial for some patients. The present study was a randomized controlled trial to examine the differences in pain scores and functional response to local injections of a corticosteroid and the NSAID ketorolac.

Methods

Sixty-four patients with radial styloid tenosynovitis were randomized using a computer-generated random number table into two groups receiving either a ketorolac injection or a triamcinolone injection. We evaluated post-injection pain intensity using a verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS), functional outcomes using the Thai Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scale, and evaluated grip and pinch strengths, recorded at baseline and 6 weeks after the injection.

Results

Thirty-one participants in the ketorolac group and 29 participants in the triamcinolone group completed the study and were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in the assessments at baseline. At the 6-week conclusion of the study, patients in the triamcinolone group had a statistically lower average pain score than in the ketorolac group (0.7 ± 2.0 vs 5.3 ± 3.2, P < 0.001), higher DASH functional score (4.4 ± 6.5 vs 34.1 ± 20.2, P < 0.001), higher right grip strength (60.8 ± 16.8 vs 49.2 ± 18.6, P < 0.015), and higher left grip strength (59.8 ± 18.1 vs 50.3 ± 18.0, P < 0.04). However, there was no difference in pinch strength.

Conclusions

Our study found that ketorolac injections resulted in inferior pain reduction, functional score and grip improvement than triamcinolone injection in patients with radial styloid tenosynovitis. Future studies are required to examine the effects of ketorolac in larger group and with longer follow-up periods to further elucidate the findings of this study.

Trial registration

The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.in.th (TCTR20200909006).

Corticosteroid Injection for the Treatment of Trigger Finger: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Control Trials

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to provide an evidence-based overview of the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection for the treatment of stenosing tenosynovitis (trigger digits). We have analysed only randomised control trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections with control injections. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus were searched to identify relevant studies. The keywords for search in the database were ('stenosing tenosynovitis' OR 'trigger finger') AND injections. After screening titles and abstracts of these studies, full-text articles of studies that fulfilled the selection criteria were obtained. For the meta-analysis, we determined the pooled mean failure rate, odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the risk of failure rate between the corticosteroid injection group and the control group through the random-effects model. Results: Six RCTs were found that involved 368 participants. The corticosteroid injection group included 190 patients and 178 patients were included in the control group. The pooled estimate of successful treatment in the corticosteroid injections group was 63.68 ± 5.32% and that in the control group was 27.53 ± 11.52%. The pooled RR of treatment failure between the corticosteroid injection group and the control group was 0.49 (95% CI 0.40-0.60). The pooled OR of treatment failure between the corticosteroid injection group and the control group was 0.18 (95% CI 0.08-0.44). All the included studies reported either mild or no complications with corticosteroids or placebo injections. Conclusions: In the treatment of stenosing tenosynovitis, the corticosteroid injections have better outcomes compared to the control injections and this meta-analysis provides significant evidence of the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection for stenosing tenosynovitis with minimal adverse effects. Level of Evidence: Level II (Therapeutic).

Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous A1 Pulley Release by Acupotomy (Needle-Knife): A Cadaveric Study of Safety and Efficacy

Purpose

This study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release by acupotomy on unembalmed cadavers.

Materials and Methods

Sixty digits (from six cadavers, three male and three female) were split into two groups using stratified randomization. All procedures were completed by a single doctor with rich experience in ultrasound-guided treatment. In the acupotomy group, the A1 pulley was released under ultrasound-guided by a needle-knife; while in the needle group, the A1 pulley was released under ultrasound-guided by a 21-gauge needle. Two groups completed six thumbs and 24 fingers, respectively. Another anatomist, blinded to the two techniques, assessed the safety, including the minimum distance between the incision and the neurovascular; flexor tendon, neurovascular and A2 pulley injury or not. Completeness release of the A1 pulley was recorded as effectiveness.

Results

No neurovascular or A2 pulley injuries were recorded. However, the incision of the thumb in both groups biased to the radial side (P <0.05), while the incision of the finger biased to the ulnar side (P <0.05). No significant flexor tendon injury was found, and only five cases (16.7%) had minor scratches in the acupotomy group; while in the needle group, 15 cases had minor scratches and lacerations occurred in three cases. The flexor tendon injury rate was 60%. Compared with the needle, ultrasound-guided acupotomy release is safer (P <0.05). The ultrasound-guided acupotomy technique was significantly more likely to result in a complete A1 pulley release compared to the needle technique (28 of 30 [93.3%] versus 11 of 30 [36.7%]; P <0.05).

Conclusion

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release by acupotomy is a safe and effective technique. When releasing the thumb by ultrasound-guided, be careful not to bias to the radial side to avoid neurovascular injury, while when releasing a finger, be careful not to bias to the ulnar side.

Current Concepts in the Management of Advanced Trigger Finger: A Critical Analysis Review

»

While the majority of patients with trigger finger obtain excellent outcomes from nonoperative treatment or release of the A1 pulley, a subset of patients with advanced trigger finger, defined as trigger finger with loss of active or passive range of motion, may have incomplete symptom relief and warrant specific attention.

»

Advanced trigger finger is more refractory to complete symptom resolution from corticosteroid injection, and particular attention should be paid to incomplete improvement of flexion contractures.

»

Unlike simple trigger finger, the pathology in advanced trigger finger involves not only the A1 pulley but also the flexor tendon, including thickening and degeneration.

»

Progression toward surgical intervention should not be delayed when nonoperative measures fail, and specific attention should be paid to persistent inability to achieve full extension following A1 pulley release.

»

Facing substantial residual flexion contracture, reduction flexor tenoplasty and partial or complete resection of the superficialis tendon followed by hand therapy and splinting may be needed to allow patients to regain reliable full range of motion.

Ultrasound Imaging and Guidance in Common Wrist/Hand Pathologies

ABSTRACT

Wrist/hand pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition with a great spectrum of etiologies (varying from overuse injuries to soft tissue tumors). Although most of the anatomical structures are quite superficial and easily evaluated during physical examination, for several reasons, the use of ultrasound imaging and guidance has gained an intriguing and paramount concern in the prompt management of relevant patients. In this aspect, the present review aims to illustrate detailed cadaveric wrist/hand anatomy to shed light into better understanding the corresponding ultrasonographic examinations/interventions in carpal tunnel syndrome, trigger finger, de Quervain tenosynovitis, rhizarthrosis, and the radiocarpal joint arthritis. In addition, evidence from the literature supporting the rationale why ultrasound guidance is henceforth unconditional in musculoskeletal practice is also exemplified.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for trigger finger

BACKGROUND

Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration, inflammation, and swelling. This causes pain and restricted movement of the affected finger. Non-surgical treatment options include activity modification, oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), splinting, and local injections with anti-inflammatory drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus placebo, glucocorticoids, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route for trigger finger.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO trials portal until 30 September 2020. We applied no language or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of adult participants with trigger finger that compared NSAIDs administered topically, orally, or by injection versus placebo, glucocorticoid, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more review authors independently screened the reports, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The seven major outcomes were resolution of trigger finger symptoms, persistent moderate or severe symptoms, recurrence of symptoms, total active range of finger motion, residual pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs conducted in an outpatient hospital setting were included (231 adult participants, mean age 58.6 years, 60% female, 95% to 100% moderate to severe disease). Both studies compared a single injection of a non-selective NSAID (12.5 mg diclofenac or 15.0 mg ketorolac) given at lower than normal doses with a single injection of a glucocorticoid (triamcinolone 20 mg or 5 mg), with maximum follow-up duration of 12 weeks or 24 weeks. In both studies, we detected risk of attrition and performance bias. One study also had risk of selection bias. The effects of treatment were sensitive to assumptions about missing outcomes. All seven outcomes were reported in one study, and five in the other. NSAID injection may offer little to no benefit over glucocorticoid injection, based on low- to very low-certainty evidence from two trials. Evidence was downgraded for bias and imprecision. There may be little to no difference between groups in resolution of symptoms at 12 to 24 weeks (34% with NSAIDs, 41% with glucocorticoids; absolute effect 7% lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% lower to 5% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). The rate of persistent moderate to severe symptoms may be higher at 12 to 24 weeks in the NSAIDs group (28%) compared to the glucocorticoid group (14%) (absolute effect 14% higher, 95% CI 2% to 33% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.46; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs result in fewer recurrences at 12 to 24 weeks (1%) compared to glucocorticoid (21%) (absolute effect 20% lower, 95% CI 21% to 13% lower; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in mean total active motion at 24 weeks (235 degrees with NSAIDs, 240 degrees with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 5% lower, 95% CI 34.54% lower to 24.54% higher; 1 study, 99 participants; MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54 to 24.54; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in residual pain at 12 to 24 weeks (20% with NSAIDs, 24% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 11% lower to 7% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in participant-reported treatment success at 24 weeks (64% with NSAIDs, 68% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 18% lower to 15% higher; 1 study, 121 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAID injection has an effect on adverse events at 12 to 24 weeks (1% with NSAIDs, 1% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 0% difference, 95% CI 2% lower to 3% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.42; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adults with trigger finger, by 24 weeks' follow-up, results from two trials show that compared to glucocorticoid injection, NSAID injection offered little to no benefit in the treatment of trigger finger. Specifically, there was no difference in resolution, symptoms, recurrence, total active motion, residual pain, participant-reported treatment success, or adverse events.

Current Concepts in the Management of Trigger Finger in Adults

Trigger finger (TF) is one of the most common causes of hand disability. Immobilization of TF with a joint-blocking orthosis has been demonstrated to effectively relieve pain and improve function. The efficacy of steroid injections for TF varies based on the number of affected digits and the clinical severity of the condition. Up to three repeat steroid injections are effective in most patients. When conservative interventions are unsuccessful, open surgical release of the A1 pulley effectively alleviates the subjective and objective manifestations of TF and currently remains the benchmark procedure for addressing TF. Although several studies have emerged suggesting that a percutaneous approach may result in improved outcomes, this technique demands a learning curve that may predispose patients to higher risk of procedure-related complications. There is no role for preoperative antibiotics in patients who undergo elective soft-tissue procedures of the hand. WALANT anesthesia has gained popularity because it has been associated with improved patient outcomes and a clear cost savings; however, proper patient selection is critical. Similar to other soft-tissue hand procedures, TF surgery rarely necessitates a postoperative opioid prescription.

Comparative effectiveness of various treatment strategies for trigger finger by pairwise meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of various strategies in the treatment of trigger finger.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials to compare treatments for trigger finger was conducted through three online databases, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library, from their inception dates to 22 May 2020.

METHODS

Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effect sizes in success rate for included articles.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles (n = 1185) were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that the efficacy of steroid injection was significantly better than the placebo group at short-term follow-ups (RR = 19.00, 95% CI = 1.17-309.77 for one-week; RR = 3.70, 95% CI = 3.70, 95% CI = 1.61-8.53 for one-month), and then became non-significant at four months (RR = 3.21, 95% CI = 0.88-11.79). There was no significant difference in success rate between steroid injection and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug injection, and between open surgery and percutaneous release at all the follow-ups. Only surgical treatment had significantly better efficacy in success rate than steroid injection at all follow-ups (RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.34-0.66 for one-month; RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80-0.96 for three-month; RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.48-0.68 for six-month; RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.20-0.72 for 12-month).

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in efficacy between steroid injection and shockwave or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug injection. The surgical treatments had the best efficacy among these treatments.