Incision techniques for trigger thumb release: a comparison of outcomes of four types of skin incision.

Jaimy E Koopman, Jeroen M Smit, Robbert M Wouters, Ruud W Selles, J Michiel Zuidam, Caroline A Hundepool
{"title":"Incision techniques for trigger thumb release: a comparison of outcomes of four types of skin incision.","authors":"Jaimy E Koopman, Jeroen M Smit, Robbert M Wouters, Ruud W Selles, J Michiel Zuidam, Caroline A Hundepool","doi":"10.1177/17531934241232341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although trigger thumb release is commonly performed, there is no consensus on the optimal skin incision. This study aimed to compare outcomes of four incision techniques, including V-shaped, oblique, transverse and longitudinal incisions. Outcomes included the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, satisfaction with the treatment and postoperative complications. The results of 875 patients who underwent trigger thumb release were assessed. All groups demonstrated improvement in self-reported hand function (range of 10-14 points), pain (25-27 points) and aesthetics (4-7 points) from baseline to 3 months postoperatively with no differences between incision techniques. Of the patients, 76% reported good or excellent satisfaction with the outcome of treatment. Satisfaction and complication rates of the different incision techniques were similar. These findings imply that there is no clear benefit of one type of incision over another for trigger thumb release, suggesting that surgeons may use the technique of their preference.<b>Level of evidence:</b> III.</p>","PeriodicalId":94237,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of hand surgery, European volume","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11529112/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of hand surgery, European volume","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934241232341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although trigger thumb release is commonly performed, there is no consensus on the optimal skin incision. This study aimed to compare outcomes of four incision techniques, including V-shaped, oblique, transverse and longitudinal incisions. Outcomes included the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, satisfaction with the treatment and postoperative complications. The results of 875 patients who underwent trigger thumb release were assessed. All groups demonstrated improvement in self-reported hand function (range of 10-14 points), pain (25-27 points) and aesthetics (4-7 points) from baseline to 3 months postoperatively with no differences between incision techniques. Of the patients, 76% reported good or excellent satisfaction with the outcome of treatment. Satisfaction and complication rates of the different incision techniques were similar. These findings imply that there is no clear benefit of one type of incision over another for trigger thumb release, suggesting that surgeons may use the technique of their preference.Level of evidence: III.

扳机拇指松解术的切口技术:四种皮肤切口的效果比较。
虽然扳机指松解术很常见,但对于最佳的皮肤切口还没有达成共识。本研究旨在比较四种切口技术的效果,包括 V 形切口、斜切口、横切口和纵切口。结果包括密歇根手部结果问卷、治疗满意度和术后并发症。对875名接受扳机指松解术的患者进行了评估。从基线到术后 3 个月,所有组别在自我报告的手部功能(10-14 分)、疼痛(25-27 分)和美观(4-7 分)方面都有所改善,切口技术之间没有差异。76%的患者对治疗效果表示满意或非常满意。不同切口技术的满意度和并发症发生率相似。这些研究结果表明,在扳机指松解术中,一种切口技术与另一种切口技术相比并没有明显的优势,这表明外科医生可以根据自己的喜好使用切口技术:证据等级:III。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信