Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Tendon Release for Trigger Finger Compared With Open Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trigger finger (also known as stenosing tenosynovitis) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects the fingers and causes discomfort and functional impairment. It is estimated to affect 2-3.6% of the population and is more common in manual laborers and individuals engaged in repetitive hand activities. This study comprehensively compares the efficacy of ultrasound-guided release versus traditional open surgery in treating trigger fingers. MATERIALS: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were studies evaluating ultrasound-guided release of trigger finger (grade 2 and higher) compared with open surgical release. A meta-analysis was performed by Revman software 5.4.1 to assess efficacy, utilizing appropriate statistical methods to address heterogeneity. Primary outcome measures included "Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand" (QDASH) scores, Grip strength, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Secondary outcome measures included Days of stopping analgesia, full-digit flexion and extension, days to return to normal activities, pinch strength, Quinnell grading score, and bow strengthening. RESULTS: Out of the initial pool of 820 studies, five met the inclusion criteria, including 275 patients with 283 trigger digits. The analysis revealed significant differences favoring the ultrasound-guided release group over the surgical group for improvement in Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score in the first month (MD -0.48, 95% CI: 0.75 to -0.2, P = .0007, I2 = 20%). The difference was not statistically significant in the 3-month follow-up period (MD -2.25, 95% CI: -0.54 to 0.05, P = .1, I2 = 0%). Additionally, there is a significant difference in the days required for return to normal activities in favor of the ultrasound release approach (MD -13.78, 95% CI: -16.68 to 10.89, P = .00001, I2 = 68%). The data displayed heterogeneity, which was resolved through sensitivity analysis that also favored the ultrasound-guided group. In terms of grip strength, full-digit flexion and extension, VAS, and days of stopping analgesia no significant differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided release showed advantages over open surgical release, resulting in improved QDASH score and quicker return to normal activities. This offers a minimally invasive, successful alternative to open surgery, reducing associated risks. Further studies with long-term follow-up are recommended.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation in patients with early and small hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis and meta-regression of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of liver cancer, accounting for 90% of cases worldwide and a significant contributor to cancer-related deaths. This study comprehensively compares the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) versus laparoscopic or percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (LRFA or PRFA) in patients with early and small HCC. METHODS: We systematically searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to include studies comparing LLR versus LRFA or PRFA in patients with early HCC meets the Milan criteria (defined as solitary nodule < 5 cm or three nodules ≤ 3 cm with no extrahepatic spread or vascular invasion). Pooled results were examined for overall survival, disease-free survival, recurrence-free survival, local, intrahepatic and extrahepatic recurrence rates, and complications. We conducted subgroup analyses based on the type of RFA. Meta-regression analyzed the association between overall survival, local recurrence, and various factors. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We analyzed the data using the R (v.4.3.0) programming language and the "meta" package of RStudio software. RESULTS: We included 19 observational studies, compromising 3756 patients. LLR showed higher 5-year overall survival compared to RFA (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.06, 1.3], P > 0.01). Our subgroup analysis showed that LLR had higher 5-year survival than PRFA (RR = 1.15, 95% CI [1.02, 1.31], P = 0.03); however, there was no significant difference between LLR and LRFA (RR = 1.26, 95% CI [0.98, 1.63], P = 0.07). LLR was associated with higher disease-free survival) RR = 1.19, 95% CI [1.05, 1.35], P < 0.01; RR = 1.61, 95% CI [1.31, 1.98], P < 0.01(and recurrence-free survival) RR = 1.21, 95% CI [1.09, 1.35], P < 0.01; RR = 1.45, 95% CI [1.15, 1.84], P < 0.01(at 1 and 3 years. LLR was associated with lower local (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.16, 0.47], P < 0.01) and intrahepatic recurrence (RR = 0.7, 95% CI [0.5, 0.97], P = 0.03) than RFA. However, complications were significantly higher with LLR (RR = 2.01, 95% CI [1.51, 2.68], P < 0.01). Our meta-regression analysis showed that younger patients had higher risk for local recurrence (P = 0.008), while age wasn't significantly linked to overall survival (P = 0.25). Other covariates like total bilirubin, alpha-fetoprotein levels, and tumor size also showed no significant associations with either overall survival or local recurrence. CONCLUSION: LLR offers improved long-term outcomes and lower recurrence rates than PRFA. However, no significant distinctions were observed between LRFA and LLR in overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and local recurrence. More robust well-designed RCTs are essential to validate our findings.

Is high-intensity focused ultrasound a magical solution to endometriosis? A systematic review.

Background: Endometriosis presents a significant challenge in gynecological endocrinology, affecting approximately 1 in 10 women of reproductive age. Abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) and rectosigmoid deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) pose unique clinical complexities. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) has emerged as a novel alternative for treating these conditions, offering a noninvasive option with potential therapeutic benefits. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to investigate the safety and efficacy of HIFU therapy for AWE and rectosigmoid DIE. The literature search encompassed databases from inception to January 20, 2024. Eligible studies included observational studies, case reports, and clinical trials evaluating HIFU treatment for endometriosis. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed following established protocols. Results: Fourteen studies were included, comprising 330 patients with AWE and 28 patients with rectosigmoid DIE. HIFU treatment demonstrated significant efficacy, with many patients experiencing complete remission, and clinical effectiveness. Reductions in lesion volume posttreatment were consistent across studies. However, safety concerns were noted, including pain at the treatment site, hematuria, and skin burns. Adverse effects underscored the importance of careful patient selection and monitoring during HIFU therapy. Conclusion: HIFU therapy shows promise as a noninvasive approach for managing AWE and rectosigmoid DIE. While efficacy outcomes are encouraging, safety considerations warrant attention. Further research, particularly randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes, is needed to validate findings and optimize treatment protocols.