Nonpalmar Endoscopic versus Open Trigger Finger Release: Results from a Prospective Trial.

The most common complaint after open surgical release for trigger finger is of pain and scarring at the surgical site. We hypothesized that use of a new nonpalmar endoscopic approach for release of the A1 pulley through an incision at the proximal digital crease would result in decreased scarring and faster recovery compared to those treated with standard open release. Methods: Patients with trigger finger were prospectively enrolled and treated with a nonpalmar endoscopic versus open surgical technique. Outcome measures included scar assessment based on the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) administered 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively, time before return to work, occupational therapy visits, and overall satisfaction. Additional outcomes included pain medication use, operative time, and complication and recurrence rates. Results: POSAS scores were better in the endoscopic treatment group than in the open group at all time points with a statistically significant difference seen at 1 week and 1 month postoperatively. The endoscopic group returned to work sooner, required fewer occupational therapy visits, and had better overall satisfaction compared to the open group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Complication and recurrence rates did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions: Patients treated for trigger finger with a nonpalmar endoscopic release through an incision at the proximal digital crease demonstrate significantly better scarring in the early postoperative period compared to patients treated with the open surgical approach. Treatment for trigger finger with this technique is as effective as the standard open technique.

Endoscopic Retrograde Approach for Trigger Finger Release: A Cadaver Study.

Trigger finger is one of the most common causes of disability and pain in the hand. Current surgical techniques for trigger finger release fall short in that they are performed blindly with trauma to, or require incision of, the palmar fascia, which can be a source of significant and long-lasting morbidity. Retrograde endoscopic release of the A1 pulley was performed through a single incision at the proximal digital crease in cadaveric specimens. The fingers were then dissected to assess for completeness of release and inspected for injury to nearby structures. Complete release of the A1 pulley was noted in 16 of 16 fingers. No significant injuries to the A2 pulley and flexor tendon were found, and no injuries to the digital nerves or vasculature occurred. The described technique, as demonstrated in cadaveric specimens, is a feasible alternative approach in the treatment of trigger finger. The technique allows complete visualization of A1 pulley release through a single palmar fascia sparing incision.

Distal Radius Fractures: AAOS Appropriate Use Criteria Versus Actual Management at a Level I Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine whether the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' (AAOS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for distal radius fractures correlates with actual treatment by orthopedic hand surgeons at a level I trauma center. METHODS: ICD-9 codes were used to retrospectively identify patients who presented with wrist fractures over 1 year. Patients with isolated distal radius fractures were evaluated using the AAOS AUC application for distal radius fractures. Actual treatment was then compared with treatment recommended by the AUC. RESULTS: Of the 112 patients, 64 (57%) received treatment that matched the AAOS AUC recommendation as an "appropriate treatment." Actual management matched the AUC recommendation 100%, 7%, and 50% of the time, for Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) type A, B, and C fractures, respectively. Surgery was performed for type A, B, and C fractures 30%, 7%, and 50% of the time, respectively. For type B fractures, only the 2 cases that were managed operatively were in agreement with the AUC. For type C fractures, increased patient age (57 years and older) was significantly associated with nonoperative treatment decisions. Surgeon decisions for nonoperative treatment were in agreement with the AUC recommendations 40% of the time, whereas surgeon decisions for surgery matched the AUC recommendations 97% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: We found low agreement between actual treatment decisions and the AUC-recommended "appropriate" treatments, especially for the type B and C fractures that were managed nonoperatively. The AUC favors surgery for all intra-articular fractures, while we emphasized age and fracture displacement in our decision-making process.