Is Hand Surgery in the Procedure Room Setting Associated With Increased Surgical Site Infection? A Cohort Study of 2,717 Patients in the Veterans Affairs Population.

PURPOSE: Procedure rooms (PRs) are increasingly used for hand surgeries, but few studies have directly compared surgical site infection (SSI) rates between the PR and operating room. We tested the hypothesis that procedure setting is not associated with an increased SSI incidence in the VA population. METHODS: We identified carpal tunnel, trigger finger, and first dorsal compartment releases performed at our VA institution from 1999 to 2021 of which 717 were performed in the main operating room and 2,000 were performed in the PR. The incidence of SSI, defined as signs of wound infection within 60 days of the index procedure, which was treated with oral antibiotics, intravenous antibiotics, and/or operating room irrigation and debridement, was compared. We constructed a multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the association between procedure setting and SSI incidence, adjusting for age, sex, procedure type, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Surgical site infection incidence was 55/2,000 (2.8%) in the PR cohort and 20/717 (2.8%) in the operating room cohort. In the PR cohort, five (0.3%) cases required hospitalization for intravenous antibiotics of which two (0.1%) cases required operating room irrigation and debridement. In the operating room cohort, two (0.3%) cases required hospitalization for intravenous antibiotics of which one (0.1%) case required operating room irrigation and debridement. All other SSIs were treated with oral antibiotics alone. The procedure setting was not independently associated with SSI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.84 [95% confidence interval, 0.49, 1.48]). The only risk factor for SSI was trigger finger release (odds ratio, 2.13 [95% confidence interval, 1.32, 3.48] compared with carpal tunnel release), which was independent of setting. CONCLUSIONS: Minor hand surgeries can be performed safely in the PR without an increased rate of SSI. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

Treatment of trigger finger: randomized clinical trial comparing the methods of corticosteroid injection, percutaneous release and open surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of CS injection, percutaneous pulley release and conventional open surgery for treating trigger finger in terms of cure, relapse and complication rates. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-seven patients with a total of 150 fingers were randomly assigned and allocated into one of the treatment groups, with treatments allocated into 150 opaque and sealed envelopes. We included patients >15 years of age with a trigger on any finger of the hand (Types II-IV) and used a minimum follow-up time of 6 months. The primary outcome measures were cures, relapses and failures. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were assigned to the conservative group to undergo CS injections, whereas 45 and 56 were assigned to undergo percutaneous release and outpatient open surgery, respectively. The trigger cure rate for patients in the injection method group was 57%, and wherever necessary, two injections were administered, which increased the cure rate to 86%. For the percutaneous and open release methods, remission of the trigger was achieved in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: The percutaneous and open surgery methods displayed similar effectiveness and proved superior to the conservative CS method regarding the trigger cure and relapse rates. Trial registration. Current Controlled Trials, http://www.controlled-trials.com/, ISRCTN19255926.