Factors Influencing the Successful Treatment of Recurrent Trigger Finger With Repeated Corticosteroid Injections: A Prospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the success rate, duration of disease control, and predictive factors of success of repeated corticosteroid injections for recurrent trigger finger.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study involved patients who had recurrent trigger finger and a history of corticosteroid injections. A total 114 patients were treated with repeated corticosteroid injections and followed for 12 months. Data on demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions, and possible predictive factors for successful treatment from medical chart reviews and direct patient interviews were compared. Patients were classified into success or failure groups at one, three, six, and 12 months after the initial injection. The relationship between hypothesized predictors and success or failure after repeated corticosteroid injection was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The overall success rates from repeated cortisone injections after one, three, six, and 12 months were 97.4%, 84.2%, 68.4%, and 49.1%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression modeling revealed that a high grade of disease (grade III or IV based on the Quinnell system), a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2, and a short symptom-free period (< six months) after a previous injection were strong predictors of symptom recurrence (odds ratio = 3.6 [95% CI 1.5-8.4], odds ratio = 2.5 [95% CI 1.1-5.9], and odds ratio = 1.8 [95% CI 1.1-3.0], respectively). The average success rates for patients at 1-year according to the number of risk factors were as follows: none of the three risk factors, 73.3%; one risk factor, 54.2% to 63.6% (54.2% for grade III-IV triggering, 63.6% for BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 and 63.6% for < 6-month symptom-free period); two risk factors, 30% to 75% (30% for a combination of grade III-IV and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, 45.5% with grade II-IV and < 6-month period, and 75% with a combination of < 6-month period and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2); and all three risk factors, 11.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated corticosteroid injections for recurrent trigger finger should be considered in patients who prefer nonsurgical treatment, especially in those without factors predictive of failure.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Accuracy and Safety of Non-Image Guided Trigger Finger Injections: A Cadaveric Study

BACKGROUND

Stenosing flexor tenosynovitis is commonly treated by injection of corticosteroids into the flexor tendon sheath. However, there is no consensus in the literature regarding the optimal technique, specifically when not utilizing ultrasound guidance. Here, we present a cadaver study in which 3 common techniques of flexor sheath injection were compared with regard to their accuracy and safety profiles.

METHODS

Fifteen fresh-frozen cadaver hands (60 digits) were evenly divided into 3 groups (20 digits per group). Digits in each group were injected with methylene blue dye using 1 of the 3 techniques (palmar-to-bone, palmar supra-tendinous, and mid-axial). The fingers were then dissected and were inspected for location of dye, as well as injury to tendon or digital nerves.

RESULTS

The mid-axial technique demonstrated the greatest accuracy with the highest rate of all intra-sheath injection, 15 of 20 digits (75%), while the palmar-to-bone technique produced the most combined intra- and extra-sheath injections, 13 of 20 digits, (65%) and the palmar supra-tendinous technique resulted in the most all extra-sheath injections, 9 of 20 digits (45%). The difference in rates of all intra-sheath injection was significant (P = .01). The mid-axial technique also produced the fewest intra-tendinous injections 0 of 20, although this result did not reach statistical significance (P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to other common non-image guided flexor tendon sheath injection techniques, the mid-axial injection technique was found to be the most accurate in producing all intra-sheath injection and least likely to result in intra-tendinous injection.

Are There Differences in Pain Reduction and Functional Improvement Among Splint Alone, Steroid Alone, and Combination for the Treatment of Adults With Trigger Finger?

BACKGROUND

Steroid injection and splinting, which are commonly recommended nonsurgical treatments in adults with trigger finger, have been demonstrated to effectively relieve pain and improve function. However, to our knowledge, there have been no direct comparisons of pain relief and function improvement with splinting alone, steroid injection alone, or a combination of splinting and steroid injection in patients with this diagnosis.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Are there differences in pain reduction and functional improvement in adults with trigger finger treated with splinting alone, steroid injection alone, and a combination of splinting and steroid injection at 6, 12, and 52 weeks after the intervention?

METHODS

Between May 2021 and December 2021, we treated 165 adult patients for trigger finger at an academic university hospital. Based on prespecified criteria, all patients we saw during that period were eligible, but 27% (45 of 165) were excluded because they had received a previous local corticosteroid injection (n = 10) or they had concomitant carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 14), first carpometacarpal joint arthritis (n = 3), osteoarthritis of the hand (n = 6), de Quervain disease (n = 3), multiple-digit trigger finger (n = 6), or pregnancy during the study period (n = 3). After screening, 120 patients were randomized to receive either splinting (n = 43), steroid injection (n = 40), or splinting plus steroid injection (n = 37). Patients were randomly assigned to the different treatments using computer-generated block randomization (block of six). Sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes were used in the allocation concealment process. Both the allocator and the outcome assessor were blinded. Splinting involved the patient wearing a fixed metacarpophalangeal joint orthosis in the neutral position at least 8 hours per day for 6 consecutive weeks. Steroid injection was performed using 1 mL of 1% lidocaine without epinephrine and 1 mL of triamcinolone acetonide (10 mg/mL) injected directly into the flexor tendon sheath. No patients were lost to follow-up or had treatment failure (that is, the patient had persistent pain or triggering with the trigger finger treatment and requested additional medical management including additional splinting, steroid injection, or surgery) at 6 or 12 weeks after the intervention, and at 52 weeks, there was no difference in loss to follow-up among the treatment groups. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed with all 120 patients, and a per-protocol analysis was conducted with 86 patients after excluding patients who were lost to follow-up or had treatment failure. Primary outcomes evaluated were VAS pain reduction and improvement in Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) scores at 6, 12, and 52 weeks after the intervention. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values were 1 and 10.9 for the VAS and MHQ, respectively.

RESULTS

There were no clinically important differences in VAS pain scores among the three treatment groups at any timepoint, in either the intention-to-treat or the per-protocol analyses. Likewise, there were no clinically important differences in MHQ scores at any timepoint in either the intention-to-treat or the per-protocol analyses.

CONCLUSION

Splinting alone is recommended as the initial treatment for adults with trigger finger because there were no clinically important differences between splinting alone and steroid injection alone in terms of pain reduction and symptom or functional improvement up to 1 year. The combination of steroid injection and splinting is disadvantageous because the benefits in terms of pain reduction and symptom or functional improvement are not different from those achieved with steroid injection or splinting alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Complications Following Endoscopic and Open Trigger Finger Release: A Retrospective Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Open trigger finger release (OTFR) and endoscopic trigger finger release (ETFR) are effective methods in treating stenosing tenosynovitis. However, a paucity of literature exists comparing the techniques. This study describes and compares postoperative complications following OTFR and ETFR at a single institution.

METHODS

Patients undergoing trigger finger release between 2018 and 2020 within a single institution were identified. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, surgical history, surgical characteristics, and clinical outcomes. Major and minor postoperative complications were assessed. Secondary outcome measures included tourniquet time and procedure time. Statistical analysis evaluated associations between postoperative complications, surgical technique, patient demographics, and surgical characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 57 patients (80 digits) were included in the study: 42 digits treated with OTFR and 38 digits treated with ETFR. Mean follow-up time was 57.6 ± 69.0 days (range, 7-307 days) for ETFR and 34.2 ± 26.3 days (range, 6-120 days) for OTFR. Overall, major, and minor complication rates for the cohort were 8.8%, 1.8% and 7.0%, respectively. There were no major complications following ETFR and 1 following OTFR (4%), the isolated case being postoperative Chronic regional pain syndrome. Minor complication rates were similar following OTFR (8%) and ETFR (6%). Persistent digit stiffness and swelling were found to be the most prevalent minor complications (n = 2, respectively), followed by wound dehiscence (n = 1). Female patients were significantly more likely to experience postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Major complications following trigger finger release are unlikely; however, minor complications are prominent. Patients treated with OTFR and ETFR showed similar postoperative complication rates. Continued investigations into the benefits of ETFR are warranted.

Responsiveness of PROMIS Instruments for Trigger Digit After Corticosteroid Injection or A1 Pulley Release

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to determine if the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) is sufficiently sensitive to detect improvement after 2 common treatments of trigger finger: corticosteroid injection or A1 pulley release.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 72 patients in the injection group and 51 in the A1 pulley release group. PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and upper extremity (UE) scores were collected at baseline and 6 weeks after injection for the injection group and at baseline, and 1 week, 6 weeks, and 3 months after surgery for A1 pulley release patients. Descriptive statistics and paired t tests were used to compare PROMIS scores within each cohort. Standardized response means (SRMs) were calculated for each PROMIS domain to gauge instrument responsiveness.

RESULTS

Average age was 62 years, 65% were female patients, and 86% were White for the steroid injection cohort, compared to 60 years, 71%, and 88%, respectively, for the A1 pulley release cohort. For the steroid injection group, mean PROMIS PI scores (-4.0 points; SRM = -0.6) and PROMIS UE scores (+3.3 points; SRM = 0.5) improved significantly at 6 weeks after injection compared to baseline. Meanwhile, A1 pulley release patients improved significantly in mean PI scores (-3.7 points; SRM = -0.5) and in UE scores (+4.9 points; SRM = 0.7) at 3 months after surgery compared to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical improvements after trigger digit treatments are reflected in improved PROMIS PI and UE scores that reach previously accepted minimum clinically important difference values for hand patients. PROMIS PI and UE also are more responsive than PROMIS PF in capturing improvement for trigger digit treatments.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As health care payers continue to emphasize patient-reported outcomes to determine treatment value and set reimbursement rates, this study helps establish that clinical improvement after trigger digit treatments are reflected in PROMIS PI and UE domains by reaching previously established minimum clinically important difference values for hand patients.

The temporal effect of corticosteroid injections into large joints prior to trigger finger release on infection

BACKGROUND

Trigger finger may be treated with open surgical release. Local corticosteroid injections have also demonstrated success. Studies suggest recipients of flexor sheath corticosteroid up to 90-days prior to open surgery are at increased risk of post-operative infection. However, the possible link between large joints corticosteroid prior to trigger finger release remains unexplored. Therefore, this study aimed to provide complication risks for trigger finger release recipients after large joint corticosteroid.

METHODS

We reviewed a national, all-payer database and examined patients who did not receive and did receive corticosteroid two, four, or six weeks prior to trigger finger release. Primary outcomes assessed were 90-day risk for antibiotics, infection, and irrigations and debridement. Multivariate logistic analyses compared cohorts using odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

No trends were found regarding antibiotic requirements, infection, as well irrigations and debridement within 90-days for recipients of corticosteroid into large joints two, four, or six weeks prior to open trigger finger release. Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, alcohol abuse, diabetes mellitus, and tobacco use were identified as independent risks for requiring antibiotics as well as irrigations and debridement (all Odds Ratios > 1.06, all p ≤ 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent trigger finger release after receiving a corticosteroid into a large joint two, four, or six weeks prior has no association with 90-day antibiotics, infection, or irrigations and debridement. While the comfort levels for individual surgeons vary, optimizing these comorbidities prior to surgery is an important goal discussed with patients to lower risks for infections.

RETROSPECTIVE

Level III.

The Effect of Corticosteroid Injections on Postoperative Infections in Trigger Finger Release

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroid injections have proven benefit in the treatment of symptomatic trigger finger; however, the immune system and tissue repair modulating properties of corticosteroids justify further consideration in surgical candidates. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between corticosteroid injections and postoperative infection in trigger finger release.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review was conducted of patients seen from 2010 to 2019 to identify those who underwent trigger finger release with subsequent antibiotic prescription for chart-documented wound infection. A demographic matched cohort of 100 patients was identified for comparison. Preoperative corticosteroid injection history including timing, frequency, and dose was collected for all patients. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and presence of postoperative infection were collected from patient medical records. Superficial infection was defined as those requiring antibiotics for resolution without return to the operating room; deep infection was defined as infections that required irrigation and debridement.

RESULTS

Of 3234 patients who underwent trigger finger release, 58 (1.8%) were identified with postoperative infections, 6 (0.2%) of which were deep infections. History of corticosteroid injection was significantly more common in patients with postoperative infection. Compared with an age-matched, gender-matched, and body mass index-matched cohort, patients with postoperative infection had significantly increased rate of diabetes mellitus at 34.5% to 19% (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

While corticosteroid injection in the preoperative period is associated with a higher rate of postoperative infection, the time before surgery and the corticosteroid dose do not appear to have an effect.

Determinants of therapeutic success of corticoids injections in trigger finger syndrome

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Trigger finger is a frequent complaint in which corticosteroid infiltrations play a relevant therapeutic role in intermediate degrees of severity when conservative treatment has not worked. However, there are no criteria to select which patients will benefit most from this procedure. The present study aimed to identify the factors leading to the therapeutic success of corticosteroid infiltration in these patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed a prospective longitudinal study based on routine clinical practice with adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of trigger finger grade II or III on the Quinnell scale, who underwent an infiltration of 20 mg of triamcinolone acetate. The outcome variables were to achieve a Quinnell grade I or reduce the severity of the symptoms by at least one category two months after the procedure. To identify the determinants of complete or partial therapeutic success, binary logistic regression predictive modelling was performed using those variables that had a satisfactory univariate correlation.

RESULTS

74 patients were included over three years, 42 of whom (61.8%) were classified as Quinnell grade III. After infiltration, 22 (32.4%) achieved complete resolution and 50 (73.5%) partial resolution. The variables tendon thickening (HR 10.72; 95%CI 2.88-39.93; P < .001) and progression time (HR 1.23; 95%CI 1.02-1.49; P = .027) proved to be predictors of therapeutic success in complete resolution. For the modelling for partial resolution, the same variables proved to be determining predictors (HR 5.57; 95%CI 1.38-22.41; P = .016 and HR 1.18; 95%CI .99-1.41; P = .051, respectively). Pulley thickening did not demonstrate predictive ability in either model.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the demonstration of finger flexor apparatus thickening is the main determining factor for the success of corticosteroid infiltrations in this pathology. This is in agreement with the histological findings of specimens obtained from both tenosynovial and pulley tissue. In the former, in addition to an infiltrate of inflammatory characteristics, the presence of chondrocytoid cells producing hyaluronic acid is demonstrated. Although the therapeutic success of infiltrations in previous studies reaches 70%, the recurrence rate is similar after 12 months. The selection of patients with tendon thickening ensures therapeutic success in the short term, could reduce recurrence in the long term, and avoid delay in release surgery.

Temporal Relationship of Corticosteroid Injection and Open Release for Trigger Finger and Correlation With Postoperative Deep Infections

PURPOSE

Previous single-institution studies have shown a relationship between corticosteroid injection and infection after surgery if open trigger release occurs within 90 days. We queried an insurance claims database to evaluate the temporal relationship between a corticosteroid injection and the development of a surgical site infection requiring secondary surgery in patients undergoing trigger release.

METHODS

The PearlDiver database was queried for adults who underwent unilateral trigger finger release surgery from 2012 to 2018. The total number of injections, time from last injection to surgery, and preoperative antibiotic use were determined, in addition to the rates of postoperative administration of antibiotics and deep infection requiring surgery at 30, 60, and 90 days after surgery. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the odds of deep infection at 30, 60, and 90 days.

RESULTS

A total of 14,686 patients were included; at least 1 corticosteroid injection was administered to 5,173 patients prior to surgery. When grouped based on whether a corticosteroid injection was administered prior to surgery, the postoperative infection rates between the groups were similar at 30, 60, and 90 days. When surgery was performed within 1 month of injection, increased odds of deep infection requiring irrigation and debridement were seen at 60 (odds ratio 2.92 [1.01-7.52]) and 90 days (odds ratio 3.01 [1.13-7.25]). Postoperative antibiotic use in the groups with and without a preoperative injection was similar at all queried time points, but patients who underwent open trigger finger release within 1 month of a prior injection had significantly increased odds (odds ratio 5.77 [1.41-22.06]) of using antibiotics after surgery. Male sex, a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index, and rheumatoid arthritis were additional independent risk factors for a deep infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo open trigger release within 1 month of a corticosteroid injection are at increased odds of developing a postoperative infection requiring surgical debridement.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic II.

Treatment of Trigger finger by ultrasound-guided needle release of a1 pulley: A series of 105 cases

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of A1 pulley release using the needle technique, under ultrasound guidance, in patients with symptomatic trigger finger.

METHODS

All patients with symptomatic trigger finger underwent A1 pulley release using an intramuscular 21 gauge (G) needle. Quinnell grade (I-IV), Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder & Hand (QuickDASH) score (0-100) and pain score on a visual analog scale (VAS: 0-10mm) were recorded at inclusion. The primary endpoint was complete resolution of the trigger finger at 6 months.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients totaling 105 treated digits were included. Mean age was 63.3±10.7 years. Prior to treatment, mean VAS pain score was 5.8±2.6mm, and mean QuickDASH score was 44.3±19.1. At 6 months, disappearance of symptoms was achieved in 85 of 91 digits with follow-up (93.4%), and in 85.7% at 12 months. The absolute reduction in VAS pain and QuickDASH scores at 6 months was respectively 4.1±3.1 (P<0.001) and 36.1±20.7 (P<0.001), and 90% of patients reported being satisfied or very satisfied at 6 months. Long duration of symptoms was significantly associated with persistent trigger finger at 6 months after intervention. Complications were rare and minor. Tenosynovitis occurred in 5.7% of cases, for which a corticosteroid injection into the tendon sheath rapidly led to favorable resolution.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of trigger finger by release of the A1 pulley under ultrasound guidance using the needle technique is a mildly invasive technique that yields rapid and effective symptom resolution with good tolerance up to 12 months.

Ultrasound-guided needle release of A1 pulley combined with corticosteroid injection is more effective than ultrasound-guided needle release alone in the treatment of trigger finger

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of ultrasonography-guided needle release of A1 pulley combined with corticosteroid injection by comparing it with ultrasound-guided needle release of the A1 pulley alone.

METHODS

A total of 49 patients (55 fingers, thumb) with trigger fingers were included in this retrospective study. Twenty-seven fingers were treated with ultrasound-guided needle release of the A1 pulley alone (monotherapy group), and 28 fingers were treated with needle release of the A1 pulley combined with corticosteroid injection (combination group). Visual analog scale (VAS), Froimson scale, postoperative recurrence rate, and thickness of A1 pulley at baseline, Week-2, Week-12, and Month-6 were recorded.

RESULTS

Higher clinical cure rates were observed in the combination group at Week-2 after treatment among patients with the Froimson scale Grade III and IV (p < 0.05). Among Froimson scale Grade IV patients, the combination group had a significantly thinner thickness of A1 pulley and better articular pain relief at Week-2 (all p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the clinical cure rate, the thickness of the A1 pulley, articular pain relief, and recurrence rate between the two groups at Week-12 and Month-6 (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasonography-guided needle release of A1 pulley plus corticosteroid injection was superior to ultrasonography-guided A1 pulley needle release alone during early-stage treatment of severe patients with trigger fingers. Moreover, ultrasonography-guided A1 pulley needle release combined with corticosteroid injection narrows the thickness of the A1 pulley. It is necessary to carry out preoperative evaluation and individualized treatment for patients of various severities.

Percutaneous Release of Trigger Finger With and Without Steroid Injection A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This study sought to determine if concomitant steroid administration with percutaneous release (PRS) of trigger finger leads to better functional outcomes, less postoperative pain, lower rates of trigger recurrence, and lower rates of subsequent open release versus percutaneous release (PR) alone.

METHODS

Articles related to trigger finger disorder, percutaneous release of trigger finger, and steroid admin- istration were assessed by two independent reviewers ac- cording to PRISMA guidelines. Data related to satisfaction, pain, disability, recurrence, and need for open release was abstracted from relevant studies. A meta-analysis using random effects models was performed to calculate pooled effect size estimates controlling for heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify pos- sible sources of heterogeneity between studies.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies with a total of 4,188 digits were included in the PR group and seven studies with a total of 700 digits were included in the PRS group. Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between treatment options with regard to overall satisfaction, postoperative pain, recur- rence rates, or subsequent need for open release. A small difference between groups was observed in postoperative disability, with lower levels of disability following PRS versus PR.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current literature, both PR and PRS are safe and effective treatments for trigger finger. Steroid administration with percutaneous release may lead to lower rates of postoperative disability, but due to the small difference observed and the modest sample size of studies that examined this outcome, further studies are needed to elucidate if the difference seen in disability is clinically relevant.

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.

Comparison of the clinical effectiveness of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection with and without needle release of the A1 pulley in treating trigger finger

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection with and without needle release of the A1 pulley in treating trigger finger.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients with trigger finger were enrolled in this retrospective study. Among them, 30 patients were treated with ultrasound-guided needle release of the A1 pulley with corticosteroid injection (group A) and 30 patients were treated with single ultrasound-guided corticosteroids injection (group B). The following parameters were evaluated including clinical parameters (pain degree, function of joint, finger tendon function, postoperative satisfaction), and ultrasound parameter (thickness of A1 pulley).

RESULTS

The postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and Quinnell scores in two groups were significantly lower than that before operation (p < 0.05). The postoperative Quinnell score of group A was significantly lower than that in group B (p < 0.05). The TAM results showed that the postoperative overall excellent and good rate of group A was significantly higher than that in group B (p < 0.05). The postoperative survey showed that more than 80% patients reported satisfaction in the two groups. The ultrasound imaging results showed that the postoperative thickness of A1 pulley in two groups were thinner than that before operation (p < 0.05). There were no adverse effects and complications in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both approaches had treatment benefit in trigger finger. Ultrasound-guided needle release of the A1 pulley with corticosteroid injection had better treatment benefits than single ultrasound-guided corticosteroids injection in improving finger tendon function and joint function.

[Blind corticosteroid injection as primary treatment of trigger finger]

Trigger finger (TF) is a common condition with a lifetime prevalence up to 2%. Local corticosteroid injection at the level of the A1 pulley is a frequently used and safe treatment for TF with cure rates around 50% in randomised controlled trials, while surgical release has cure rates near 100% but more severe complications. Blind local corticosteroid injection has the same effect as ultrasound-guided local corticosteroid injection on cure rates, and the effect remains the same, whether the steroid is placed intra-sheath or extra-sheath. The treatment of TF can be carried out as blind local corticosteroid injection in general practice before possible referral to an orthopaedic specialist.

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

We assessed the efficacy of ketorolac trometamol injections compared with triamcinolone acetonide injections in trigger digits. Patients with trigger digits were randomized to receive either ketorolac or triamcinolone. They were followed up at 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks, and monitored for resolution of triggering, pain and total active motion. One hundred and twenty-one patients with single trigger digits were recruited (59 ketorolac, 62 triamcinolone). At 6 weeks, 54% of patients in the triamcinolone group had complete resolution of trigger, whereas no patients in the ketorolac group had resolution. At 12 weeks, 58% of patients in the triamcinolone group had complete resolution of trigger compared with 6.7% in the ketorolac group. At 24 weeks, both groups had comparable rates of resolution at 26% and 25%, respectively. Patients in the triamcinolone group had significantly better resolution of pain at 3, 6 and 12 weeks. But at 24 weeks, there was no significant difference in pain between both groups. Significantly less flexion deformity was reported at 3 weeks and 6 weeks in the triamcinolone group. In the short term, ketorolac was less effective in relieving symptoms of trigger digit than triamcinolone. Level of evidence: I.

The Effect of Trigger Finger Injection Site on Injection-Related Pain

BACKGROUND

Stenosing tenosynovitis, or trigger digit, is a common condition for which patients often seek relief. Corticosteroid injections have been shown to provide relief in many cases, and several different approaches for delivering the injection have been described in the literature. We compared patients' perception of pain following each of 3 accepted injection methods, namely, palmar proximal, palmar distal, and webspace approaches.

METHODS

We prospectively followed 38 patients with 39 symptomatic digits in this trial, with varying severities of trigger finger as graded by the Patel and Moradia classification. The patients were divided into 3 groups representing the 3 approaches without randomization, based upon the treating surgeons' preference. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were calculated pre-injection and at 4-week and 8-week follow-up visits.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in age, sex, affected extremity, grade, or duration of symptoms were observed among the 3 approaches. No statistically significant differences in VAS score were found between the palmar proximal (mean = 6.6, SD = 2.6), palmar distal (mean = 6.0, SD = 2.8), and webspace (mean = 6.8, SD = 1.8) approaches.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that injection approach does not affect patient pain perception scores or outcomes. We recommend that the technique that is most comfortable to the surgeon be utilized, with the understanding that one injection alone has a low likelihood of relieving symptoms.

Surgery for trigger finger

BACKGROUND

Trigger finger is a common clinical disorder, characterised by pain and catching as the patient flexes and extends digits because of disproportion between the diameter of flexor tendons and the A1 pulley. The treatment approach may include non-surgical or surgical treatments. Currently there is no consensus about the best surgical treatment approach (open, percutaneous or endoscopic approaches).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different methods of surgical treatment for trigger finger (open, percutaneous or endoscopic approaches) in adults at any stage of the disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS up to August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed adults with trigger finger and compared any type of surgical treatment with each other or with any other non-surgical intervention. The major outcomes were the resolution of trigger finger, pain, hand function, participant-reported treatment success or satisfaction, recurrence of triggering, adverse events and neurovascular injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trial reports, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes calculated risk ratios (RRs), and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When possible, the data were pooled into meta-analysis using the random-effects model. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included, totalling 1260 participants, with 1361 trigger fingers. The age of participants included in the studies ranged from 16 to 88 years; and the majority of participants were women (approximately 70%). The average duration of symptoms ranged from three to 15 months, and the follow-up after the procedure ranged from eight weeks to 23 months.The studies reported nine types of comparisons: open surgery versus steroid injections (two studies); percutaneous surgery versus steroid injection (five studies); open surgery versus steroid injection plus ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injection (one study); percutaneous surgery plus steroid injection versus steroid injection (one study); percutaneous surgery versus open surgery (five studies); endoscopic surgery versus open surgery (one study); and three comparisons of types of incision for open surgery (transverse incision of the skin in the distal palmar crease, transverse incision of the skin about 2-3 mm distally from distal palmar crease, and longitudinal incision of the skin) (one study).Most studies had significant methodological flaws and were considered at high or unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias. The primary comparison was open surgery versus steroid injections, because open surgery is the oldest and the most widely used treatment method and considered as standard surgery, whereas steroid injection is the least invasive control treatment method as reported in the studies in this review and is often used as first-line treatment in clinical practice.Compared with steroid injection, there was low-quality evidence that open surgery provides benefits with respect to less triggering recurrence, although it has the disadvantage of being more painful. Evidence was downgraded due to study design flaws and imprecision.Based on two trials (270 participants) from six up to 12 months, 50/130 (or 385 per 1000) individuals had recurrence of trigger finger in the steroid injection group compared with 8/140 (or 65 per 1000; range 35 to 127) in the open surgery group, RR 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.33), for an absolute risk difference that 29% fewer people had recurrence of symptoms with open surgery (60% fewer to 3% more individuals); relative change translates to improvement of 83% in the open surgery group (67% to 91% better).At one week, 9/49 (184 per 1000) people had pain on the palm of the hand in the steroid injection group compared with 38/56 (or 678 per 1000; ranging from 366 to 1000) in the open surgery group, RR 3.69 (95% CI 1.99 to 6.85), for an absolute risk difference that 49% more had pain with open surgery (33% to 66% more); relative change translates to worsening of 269% (585% to 99% worse) (one trial, 105 participants).Because of very low quality evidence from two trials we are uncertain whether open surgery improve resolution of trigger finger in the follow-up at six to 12 months, when compared with steroid injection (131/140 observed in the open surgery group compared with 80/130 in the control group; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.76); evidence was downgraded due to study design flaws, inconsistency and imprecision. Low-quality evidence from two trials and few event rates (270 participants) from six up to 12 months of follow-up, we are uncertain whether open surgery increased the risk of adverse events (incidence of infection, tendon injury, flare, cutaneous discomfort and fat necrosis) (18/140 observed in the open surgery group compared with 17/130 in the control group; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84) and neurovascular injury (9/140 observed in the open surgery group compared with 4/130 in the control group; RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.7 to 6.77). Twelve participants (8 versus 4) did not complete the follow-up, and it was considered that they did not have a positive outcome in the data analysis. We are uncertain whether open surgery was more effective than steroid injection in improving hand function or participant satisfaction as studies did not report these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence indicates that, compared with steroid injection, open surgical treatment in people with trigger finger, may result in a less recurrence rate from six up to 12 months following the treatment, although it increases the incidence of pain during the first follow-up week. We are uncertain about the effect of open surgery with regard to the resolution rate in follow-up at six to 12 months, compared with steroid injections, due high heterogeneity and few events occurred in the trials; we are uncertain too about the risk of adverse events and neurovascular injury because of a few events occurred in the studies. Hand function or participant satisfaction were not reported.

A Meta-analysis of Corticosteroid Injection for Trigger Digits Among Patients With Diabetes

A majority of patients with diabetes have trigger digits. Initial management of symptomatic trigger digits commonly involves corticosteroid injection. However, varying outcomes have been reported for patients with diabetes who receive corticosteroid injections. The authors conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of diabetes on outcome after corticosteroid injection for trigger digit. PubMed and other Internet databases were searched for the period 1977 to 2015. Five articles, involving 381 diabetic digits and 449 non-diabetic digits, were included in the meta-analysis. The authors found treatment failure rates of 78% for patients with insulin-dependent diabetes, 47% for patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes, and 49% for patients without diabetes when a single injection of corticosteroid was administered for trigger digit. After 3 injections, the failure rates were 57%, 39%, and 30%, respectively. The pooled data showed that patients with insulin-dependent diabetes and patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes had worse prognoses after corticosteroid injection for trigger digit than patients without diabetes. Furthermore, the patients with insulin-dependent diabetes had a trend toward multiple digit involvement and much worse treatment outcomes than the patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes. The authors conclude that more aggressive treatment, such as surgical intervention, should be considered for those patients expected to have high failure rates after injection. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(1):e8-e14.].

Needle-Free Jet Lidocaine Administration for Preinjection Anesthesia in Trigger Finger Injection: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of needle-free jet lidocaine (J-tip) administration for pain reduction in trigger finger corticosteroid injection compared with simultaneous lidocaine injection with corticosteroid.

METHODS

A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed in which patients received either 0.25 mL of 2% lidocaine administered by J-tip just prior to 0.5 mL of corticosteroid injection by needle or 0.5 mL of 1% lidocaine and 0.5 mL of corticosteroid administered simultaneously through a needle for the treatment of trigger finger. Both the expected pain preinjection and the actual pain experienced postinjection were measured with a visual analog scale (VAS). Pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) scores were recorded before injection.

RESULTS

The use of the J-tip demonstrated a lower mean actual pain, 3.3 VAS, compared with the control group, 4.6 VAS. Both study groups anticipated more pain than they actually experienced. The PCS did not correlate to pre- or post-injection scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Needle-free jet administration of lidocaine reduces the pain associated with trigger finger injection. Patients anticipate more pain than they experience with trigger finger injection.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic I.

Transient Vasospastic Response Following the Injection of Corticosteroid into the Hand

A sixty-year-old right hand dominant woman with longstanding left basal joint arthritis and right small trigger finger presented for corticosteroid injections to both areas. She had previously received injections with no adverse effects and good relief of symptoms. Following this most recent injection of corticosteroid, she experienced transient ischemia of the left hand and the right long and ring fingers. Corticosteroid injections can rarely cause local vasospasm, even when not inadvertently injected into the vascular system. This condition is self-limited following supportive treatment.

Impact of Corticosteroid Injection Site on the Treatment Success Rate of Trigger Finger: A Prospective Study Comparing Ultrasound-Guided True Intra-Sheath and True Extra-Sheath Injections

The aim of this study was to investigate whether differences in corticosteroid injection site influence the therapeutic effect on trigger finger and thickness of local structures such as the A1 pulley and flexor tendons. Previously untreated trigger fingers were randomly assigned to receive either a true intra-sheath (group I) or an extra-sheath (group E) injection under ultrasonographic guidance. Symptom remission and recurrence rates and recurrence timing did not significantly differ between the groups. Ultrasonography revealed mean (standard deviation) pre-injection A1 pulley thicknesses of 1.1 (0.3) and 1.1 (0.2) mm in groups I and E, respectively. One month after injection, these decreased to 0.7 (0.2) and 0.8 (0.2) mm, respectively (p < 0.05). Furthermore, mean (standard) pre-injection flexor digitorum tendon thickness was 4.1 (0.4) and 4.0 (0.5) mm in groups I and E, respectively, and, 1 mo after injection, decreased to 3.9 (0.3) and 3.8 (0.5) mm, respectively (p < 0.05). However, the difference at each time point between the two groups was not statistically significant. True intra-sheath injection offers no apparent advantage over extra-sheath injection for treating trigger fingers because both have the same effect on local structures.

Iatrogenic Mycobacterium abscessus infection in a trigger finger

An immunocompetent 63-year-old lady developed Mycobacterium abscessus soft tissue infection of the hand following local corticosteroid injection for trigger finger. The patient was successfully treated with repeated radical debridement and prolonged antimicrobial therapy. Atypical mycobacterial infections, including those caused by M. abscessus, albeit rare, should be considered in cases of late-onset indolent infection following local injury surgical procedures, and injections. Clinical vigilance, timely diagnosis, combined directed antimicrobial treatment, coupled with adequate surgical debridement are key for successful management.

[Subcutaneous atrophy following steroid injection in the treatment of trigger finger]

Trigger finger (TF), also known as stenosing tenosynovitis, is a rather common condition that causes entrapment of the flexor tendon at the site of the annular pulley. The accepted first-line treatment for TF is injection of long-acting corticosteroid in the involved flexor tendon sheath. This treatment is characterized by a high success rate and a low level of reported adverse effects in the literature. We report a case of subcutaneous atrophy after steroid injection in the treatment of TF.

Surgery versus ultrasound-guided steroid injections for trigger finger disease: protocol of a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Trigger fingers have been reported in the literature for over a century; yet, the lack of trials comparing open surgery to corticosteroid injection is pronounced. At the initiation of the present study in 2010, no randomized controlled trials could be found comparing open surgery to corticosteroid injection. In the present randomized controlled trial, we plan to compare the efficacy of a single ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection with conventional open surgery in terms of ability to correct the trigger finger.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study is performed as an open-label single-centre, randomised controlled trial with a one-year follow-up. Patients are randomly assigned to either ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection (n = 83) or to open surgical release of A1-pulley (n = 83). Follow-up is conducted at 12 weeks and one year after treatment. The affected finger will be assessed using a trigger finger score. Furthermore, any treatment complications, absence from work or sport and use of related medical services or additional treatment are also recorded.

DISCUSSION

The present study will be the first to compare treatment of trigger finger by conventional open surgery with ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection in a randomized controlled trial. The results will contribute to evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of trigger finger patients.

FUNDING

not relevant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Danish Data Protection Agency (1-16-02-119-11). The Central Denmark Region Committees on Biomedical Research Ethics (M-20110157). Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT 01486420.

Sonographically guided tendon sheath injections are more accurate than blind injections: implications for trigger finger treatment

OBJECTIVES

Trigger finger is frequently treated with tendon sheath injections. This cadaveric study evaluated the accuracy and safety of blind and sonographically guided tendon sheath injections. To our knowledge, a study that precisely mapped the locations of material injected into the tendon sheath has not been reported previously.

METHODS

A total of 40 fingers (excluding thumbs) of 5 fresh cadavers were used. Methylene blue dye was injected into the flexor tendon sheath using either a blind or sonographically guided injection technique (20 fingers for each technique). The location of the dye was then determined via dissection.

RESULTS

Dye was observed only in the tendon sheath (ie, optimal outcome) in 70% of sonographically guided injections and 15% of blind injections (P = .001). Dye was observed in the tendon proper (ie, unsafe outcome) in 30% of blind injections and 0% of sonographically guided injections (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that sonographically guided tendon sheath injections were more accurate and may be potentially safer than blind injections. These findings suggest that sonographically guided injections should be considered over blind injections when treating trigger finger.

Multiple pulley rupture following corticosteroid injection for trigger digit: case report

We report a case of pulley rupture following repeated local corticosteroid injections for trigger digit. The treatment involved exploration, tenolysis, and reconstruction using the palmaris longus tendon.

Corticosteroid injections for trigger finger

BACKGROUND

Trigger finger is a disease of the tendons of the hand leading to triggering (locking) of affected fingers, dysfunction, and pain. Available treatments include local injection with corticosteroids, surgery, or splinting.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroid injections for trigger finger in adults using the following endpoints: treatment success, frequency of triggering or locking, functional status of the affected fingers, and severity of pain of the fingers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The databases CENTRAL, DARE, Medline (1966 to November 2007), EMBASE (1956 to November 2007), CINAHL (1982 to November 2007), AMED (1985 to November 2007), and PEDro (a physiotherapy evidence database) were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The authors selected randomized and controlled clinical trials evaluating effectiveness and safety of corticosteroid injections for trigger finger in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The databases were searched for titles of eligible studies. After screening abstracts of these studies, full text articles of studies that fulfilled the selection criteria were obtained. Data were extracted using a predefined electronic form. The methodologic quality of included trials was assessed by using items from the checklist developed by Jadad and the Delphi list. The authors planned to extract data regarding information on the primary outcome measures: treatment success, frequency of triggering or locking, functional impairment of fingers, and severity of the trigger finger; and the secondary outcome measures: proportion of patients with side effects, types of side effects, and patient satisfaction with injection.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomized controlled studies were found that involved 63 participants: 34 were allocated to corticosteroids and lidocaine (Xylocaine), and 29 were allocated to lidocaine alone. Corticosteroid injection with lidocaine was more effective than lidocaine alone on treatment success at four weeks (relative risk = 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.34 to 7.40). The number needed to treat to benefit was 3. No adverse events or side effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of local corticosteroid injections was studied in only two small randomized controlled trials of poor methodologic quality. Both studies showed better short-term effects of corticosteroid injection combined with lidocaine compared with lidocaine alone on the treatment success outcome. In one study, the effects of corticosteroid injections lasted up to four months. No adverse effects were observed. The available evidence for the effectiveness of intratendon sheath corticosteroid injection for trigger finger can be graded as a silver level evidence for superiority of corticosteroid injections combined with lidocaine over injections with lidocaine alone.

Ultrasound-guided first annular pulley injection for trigger finger

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop an ultrasound-guided first annular (A1) pulley injection technique for trigger finger with documentation of outcomes at 1 year.

METHODS

We performed a short-axis injection into a triangle bordered by the A1 pulley, the flexor digitorum superficialis and profundus tendons and volar plate, and the distal metacarpal bone with a 10-mg median dose of triamcinolone acetonide and 2% lidocaine. This was a prospective study of 50 of 52 consecutive trigger fingers from 24 patients recruited from a physical medicine and rehabilitation private practice.

RESULTS

All patients were available for follow-up, with 94% (47 of 50) of fingers having complete resolution of symptoms at 6 months, 90% (37 of 41) at 1 year, 65% (17 of 26) at 18 months, and 71% (12 of 17) at 3 years after a single injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our ultrasound-guided A1 pulley injection technique is a highly effective and minimally invasive treatment option for trigger finger with a 90% success rate at 1 year for complete resolution of symptoms after a single injection. Assuming similar patient populations, our results were statistically significant (P < .01) compared with the 56% to 57% success rates recently reported for blind injections.

Corticosteroid injection for trigger finger in adults

BACKGROUND

Trigger finger is a disease of the tendons of the hand leading to triggering (locking) of affected fingers, dysfunction and pain. Available treatments include local injection with corticosteroids, surgery, or splinting.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid injections for trigger finger in adults using the following endpoints: treatment success, frequency of triggering or locking, functional status of the affected fingers, and severity of pain of the fingers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The databases CENTRAL, DARE, MEDLINE (1966 to November 2007), EMBASE (1956 to November 2007), CINAHL (1982 to November 2007), AMED (1985 to November 2007) and PEDro (a physiotherapy evidence database) were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomized and controlled clinical trials evaluating efficacy and safety of corticosteroid injections for trigger finger in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The databases were searched for titles of eligible studies. After screening abstracts of these studies, full text articles of studies which fulfilled the selection criteria were obtained. Data were extracted using a predefined electronic form. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed by using items from the checklist developed by Jadad and the Delphi list. We planned to extract data regarding information on the primary outcome measures: treatment success, frequency of triggering or locking, and functional impairment of fingers, severity of the trigger finger; and the secondary outcome measures: proportion of patients with side effects, types of side effects, and patient satisfaction with injection.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomized controlled studies were found that involved 63 participants: 34 were allocated to corticosteroids and lidocaine, and 29 were allocated to lidocaine alone. Corticosteroid injection with lidocaine was more effective than lidocaine alone on treatment success at four weeks (relative risk 3.15, 95% CI 1.34 to 7.40). The number needed to treat to benefit was 3. No adverse events or side effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of local corticosteroid injections was studied in only two small randomized controlled trials of poor methodological quality. Both studies showed better short-term effects of corticosteroid injection combined with lidocaine compared to lidocaine alone on the treatment success outcome. In one study the effects of corticosteroid injections lasted up to four months. No adverse effects were observed. The available evidence for the effectiveness of intra-tendon sheath corticosteroid injection for trigger finger can be graded as a silver level evidence for superiority of corticosteroid injections combined with lidocaine over injections with lidocaine alone.

A prospective randomized controlled trial of injection of dexamethasone versus triamcinolone for idiopathic trigger finger

PURPOSE

This study was designed to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in resolution of triggering 3 months after injection with either a soluble (dexamethasone) or insoluble (triamcinolone) corticosteroid for idiopathic trigger finger.

METHODS

Eighty-four patients were enrolled in a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing dexamethasone and triamcinolone injection for idiopathic trigger finger. Sixty-seven patients completed the 6-week follow-up (35 triamcinolone arm, 32 dexamethasone arm), and 72 patients completed the 3-month follow-up (41 triamcinolone arm, 31 dexamethasone arm). Outcome measures included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, trigger finger grading according to Quinnell, and satisfaction on a visual analog scale. To preserve autonomy, patients were permitted additional injections and operative treatment at any time. Twenty-five patients requested a second injection (10 triamcinolone arm, 15 dexamethasone arm), and 21 elected operative treatment (10 triamcinolone arm, 11 dexamethasone arm) during the study period. The analysis was according to intention to treat principles.

RESULTS

Six weeks after injection, absence of triggering was documented in 22 of 35 patients in the triamcinolone cohort and in 12 of 32 patients in the dexamethasone cohort. The rates 3 months after injection were 27 of 41 in the triamcinolone cohort and 22 of 31 in the dexamethasone cohort. The triamcinolone cohort had significantly better satisfaction and Quinnell grades than did the dexamethasone cohort at the 6-week follow-up but not at the 3-month follow-up. There were no significant differences between Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores at the 6-week follow-up and the 3-month follow-up. After the close of the study, there were 8 recurrences among patients with documented absence of triggering in the triamcinolone cohort and 1 in the dexamethasone cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there were no differences 3 months after injection, our data suggest that triamcinolone may have a more rapid but ultimately less durable effect on idiopathic trigger finger than does dexamethasone.

Clinical outcome of extrasynovial steroid injection for trigger finger

A prospective clinical study was performed to investigate the clinical results of extrasynovial (subcutaneous) steroid injection for trigger finger. One hundred and twenty-nine trigger fingers were investigated in 100 adult patients; 76 were women and 24 were men. Their mean age was 60 years (range: 17 to 88 years). We classified trigger fingers into three different grades according to clinical severity at a medical examination. All patients were injected with betamethasone mixed with lidocaine. Surgical release of the A1 pulley was performed at the patients' request if steroid injection therapy was not effective. Pain and snapping were relieved in 98% and 74% of cases, respectively. Recurrence occurred in about half our patients, but the same clinical benefit was obtained after re-injection. Surgery was performed for seven fingers. No complications of steroid injections were observed. This study suggests that extrasynovial steroid injection is a valuable conservative treatment for trigger finger and it is not necessary to try and inject into the tendon sheath to get a good result and markedly reduce the risk of causing damage to tendons and other structures.

Corticosteroid injections in the treatment of trigger finger: a level I and II systematic review

Trigger finger is a tendinitis (stenosing tenosynovitis) with multiple management approaches. We conducted an evidence-based medicine systematic review of level I and II prospective randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection in managing trigger finger. MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and secondary references were reviewed to locate all English-language prospective randomized controlled trials evaluating trigger finger treatment. Four studies using injectable corticosteroids were identified, based on the following inclusion criteria: all were prospective randomized controlled trials of adults with >85% follow-up. This review indicates that the incidence of trigger finger is greatest in women (75%), with an average patient age range of 52 to 62 years. Combined analysis of these four studies shows that corticosteroid injections are effective in 57% of patients.

A technique for accurate and safe injection of steroid in trigger digits using ultrasound guidance

Steroid injections have long been the main stay of conservative treatment of trigger digits. This procedure gives variable results, which is dependent on a number of factors. The injection of the steroid in the right place improves the success rate and also prevents complications associated with the procedure. We describe a technique using ultrasound for accurate injection of steroid to maximise its beneficial effects in treatment of trigger digits.

Percutaneous release of the trigger thumb: is it safe, cheap and effective?

Percutaneous release of the trigger finger and trigger thumb has recently gained popularity. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical results and safety of percutaneous release in trigger thumbs. Twenty-five thumbs of 21 patients were released percutaneously in the polyclinic under local anaesthesia. Steroid injection was performed following the release procedure using the same needle. The thumb function was evaluated by a patient questionnaire, and functional thumb scores (VAS) were calculated in the preoperative and postoperative periods. At the 1 week follow-up, four patients had signs of discomfort and triggering because of incomplete release. These patients underwent open A1 pulley release. Three superficial tendon lacerations were seen during these open procedures. There were no wound complications or signs of digital nerve or artery injury in any of the patients. The preoperative mean VAS was 26.62 (18-36). This decreased to 2.57 (0-5) at the first postoperative month (P<0.001) and to 2.19 (0-3; P<0.001) at the sixth month. When the VAS scores at the first and sixth months were compared, the difference was statistically significant. We concluded that percutaneous release of trigger thumbs is a cheap, safe and effective procedure with a low rate of complications.

The effect of corticosteroid injection for trigger finger on blood glucose level in diabetic patients

PURPOSE

To determine how corticosteroid injections for trigger finger affect the blood glucose level in diabetic patients and the clinical results of those injections.

METHODS

Eighteen diabetic patients receiving a methylprednisolone injection for a single trigger finger were studied. Six patients had type I (juvenile-onset) diabetes and 12 patients had type II (adult-onset) diabetes. Patients recorded their usual blood glucose measurements and then they recorded their blood glucose measurements for 5 days after injection. Clinical efficacy of the injections was measured by avoidance of surgery.

RESULTS

There were 3 men and 15 women with an average age of 58 years. The blood glucose level increased after corticosteroid injection for all patients. The first morning after injection showed the biggest increase in blood glucose level: 73% more than the average preinjection levels. By the fifth morning after injection the blood glucose levels still were increased by 26% more than the preinjection levels. This trend was marked particularly in type I diabetic patients, who had an average blood glucose level increase the first morning after injection of 145%, which decreased over 5 days to 22% greater than baseline levels. Sixteen patients had follow-up evaluation over a period of 1 year and of these 16 patients 7 required surgery for this condition.

CONCLUSIONS

A digital injection of the corticosteroid methylprednisolone acetate in diabetic patients with trigger finger causes a hyperglycemic effect that lasts for at least 5 days but can help prevent the need for surgery more than half the time.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level IV.