Early Postoperative Function After Open Versus Ultrasound-Guided Trigger Finger Release

Clinical outcomes after open trigger finger release are excellent. Minimally invasive techiques with ultrasound guidance theoretically offer advantages for faster recovery but this technique has not been compared prospectively with the standard of care (open trigger release). This study aims to prospectively analyze patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing open vs. ultrasound-guided trigger finger release.

Trigger finger is initially treated conservatively. Conservative treatment options include modification of activities, painkiller administration, splinting, and corticosteroid injections (1). Open or minimally invasive surgical treatment can be considered if conservative treatment fails. Minimally invasive surgery options consist of ultrasound-guided or blind percutaneous trigger finger release. Many studies have reported good clinical outcomes after ultrasound-guided trigger finger release, including low rates of catching or locking recurrence rates, high QuickDASH scores and high patient satisfaction (2-4). Postoperative clinical outcomes of open surgery have been widely compared to percutaneous surgery (5-8). However, the comparison of postoperative results between ultrasound-guided and open trigger finger release has been scarcely reported. Nikolaou et al. reported that ultrasound-guided trigger finger release resulted in a significantly sooner return to normal activities and better patient-reported cosmetic outcomes than open trigger finger release (9). Success rates and mean QuickDASH scores did not differ significantly between these groups in this cohort. The potential benefits of ultrasound-guided trigger finger release compared to open trigger finger release have yet to be investigated. This study aims to prospectively analyze patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing open vs. ultrasound-guided trigger finger release.