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.

Acute hand injuries in athletes.

Hand and wrist injuries in athletes are common, representing between 3 and 25% of all sports injuries. As many as a quarter of all sports injuries involve the hand or wrist. We review the recent literature regarding acute hand injuries in athletes based on the structures involved - bone, muscle/tendon, ligament, and neurovascular - including diagnosis and pathophysiology of these injuries, focusing on athlete-specific facets of treatment, and when available, opinions on return to play.

What are the Risk Factors for Hardware Removal After Tibia or Fibula Fracture?

Indications for open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of tibia and/or fibula fractures vary; however, some patients require removal of hardware (ROH) due to various complications. Currently, data evaluating the epidemiology of and risk factors for ROH of the tibia/fibula are limited. We examined the associations between tibia/fibula fractures and (1) characteristics of fractures requiring ORIF, (2) indications for ROH, (3) demographic risk factors for ROH; (4) length of stay, and (5) total hospital charges. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used to identify patients admitted for tibia/fibula ORIF and ROH between 1998 and 2010 in the United States. We used ICD-9 codes to identify fracture locations, comorbidities, and indications for ROH. We identified 1,610,149 ORIF patients, and 56,864 of these patients (3.5%) underwent ROH. Logistic regression analyses and independent sample t-tests were used to assess risk factors and differences. Among fractures requiring ORIF, the most common were for closed fractures of both tibia and fibula. The most common indications for ROH were infection and osteomyelitis. Risk factors for ROH included men and Deyo comorbidity scores of 1 and 2 or more. Age and race were not risk factors for ROH. The length of stay and total charges were significantly higher for ROH compared to those with ORIF only. Hardware removal is a serious complication following ORIF for fractures of the tibia/fibula. The results of the current study suggest that gender, presence of comorbidities, and payer status were all significant factors in predicting hardware removal for the tibia/fibula following ORIF.