USG 引导下与盲滑轮松解术治疗扳机指的疗效和安全性比较：系统回顾与荟萃分析

Q2 Medicine

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102795

Rachna Rohilla , Harmeet Kaur , Punit Tiwari

{"title":"USG 引导下与盲滑轮松解术治疗扳机指的疗效和安全性比较：系统回顾与荟萃分析","authors":"Rachna Rohilla , Harmeet Kaur , Punit Tiwari","doi":"10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>To compare the efficacy and safety of the USG-guided vs blind pulley release (PR) for Trigger Finger by performing a meta-analysis of all relevant studies in the published literature.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A thorough and methodical search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was carried out. Review Manager Software (RevMan) 5.4.1 was used to analyze the extracted data, and the results were displayed as forest plots with matching 95 % confidence intervals.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The primary efficacy outcome i.e. residual triggering was significantly lower in USG-guided PR as compared to blind PR with a risk ratio of 0.16 (95 % CI 0.03–0.87), p = 0.03. The primary safety outcome i.e., percentage of complications was lower in the USG-guided procedure group, although the result was not statistically significant with a risk ratio of 0.25 (95 % CI 0.05–1.16), p = 0.08 with I<sup>2</sup> of 0 %. The operation time was longer in the USG-guided PR as compared to the blind procedure, although the difference was not statistically significant with a mean difference of 5.36 (95 % CI: −3.73, 14.46), p = 0.25. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score at 4 weeks was significantly lower in USG-guided PR versus blind PR with a mean difference of −0.40 (95 % CI: −0.68, −0.33), p = 0.004.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>When compared to blind PR, ultrasound-guided A1 PR for trigger finger was proven to be a safer and more economical method.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":53594,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 102795"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of efficacy and safety of USG-guided versus blind pulley release for trigger finger: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Rachna Rohilla , Harmeet Kaur , Punit Tiwari\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102795\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>To compare the efficacy and safety of the USG-guided vs blind pulley release (PR) for Trigger Finger by performing a meta-analysis of all relevant studies in the published literature.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A thorough and methodical search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was carried out. Review Manager Software (RevMan) 5.4.1 was used to analyze the extracted data, and the results were displayed as forest plots with matching 95 % confidence intervals.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The primary efficacy outcome i.e. residual triggering was significantly lower in USG-guided PR as compared to blind PR with a risk ratio of 0.16 (95 % CI 0.03–0.87), p = 0.03. The primary safety outcome i.e., percentage of complications was lower in the USG-guided procedure group, although the result was not statistically significant with a risk ratio of 0.25 (95 % CI 0.05–1.16), p = 0.08 with I<sup>2</sup> of 0 %. The operation time was longer in the USG-guided PR as compared to the blind procedure, although the difference was not statistically significant with a mean difference of 5.36 (95 % CI: −3.73, 14.46), p = 0.25. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score at 4 weeks was significantly lower in USG-guided PR versus blind PR with a mean difference of −0.40 (95 % CI: −0.68, −0.33), p = 0.004.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>When compared to blind PR, ultrasound-guided A1 PR for trigger finger was proven to be a safer and more economical method.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma\",\"volume\":\"58 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102795\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0976566224004648\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0976566224004648","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景通过对已发表文献中的所有相关研究进行荟萃分析，比较 USG 引导下与盲滑轮松解术 (PR) 治疗扳机指的疗效和安全性。结果USG引导下的PR与盲法PR相比，主要疗效结局（即残留触发）显著降低，风险比为0.16（95 % CI 0.03-0.87），P = 0.03。USG 引导手术组的主要安全性结果（即并发症百分比）较低，但风险比为 0.25 (95 % CI 0.05-1.16)，p = 0.08，I2 为 0 %，差异无统计学意义。与盲法相比，USG 引导 PR 组的手术时间更长，但差异无统计学意义，平均差异为 5.36 (95 % CI: -3.73, 14.46)，P = 0.25。结论与盲法相比，超声引导 A1 PR 治疗扳机指被证明是一种更安全、更经济的方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparison of efficacy and safety of USG-guided versus blind pulley release for trigger finger: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To compare the efficacy and safety of the USG-guided vs blind pulley release (PR) for Trigger Finger by performing a meta-analysis of all relevant studies in the published literature.

Methods

A thorough and methodical search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was carried out. Review Manager Software (RevMan) 5.4.1 was used to analyze the extracted data, and the results were displayed as forest plots with matching 95 % confidence intervals.

Results

The primary efficacy outcome i.e. residual triggering was significantly lower in USG-guided PR as compared to blind PR with a risk ratio of 0.16 (95 % CI 0.03–0.87), p = 0.03. The primary safety outcome i.e., percentage of complications was lower in the USG-guided procedure group, although the result was not statistically significant with a risk ratio of 0.25 (95 % CI 0.05–1.16), p = 0.08 with I² of 0 %. The operation time was longer in the USG-guided PR as compared to the blind procedure, although the difference was not statistically significant with a mean difference of 5.36 (95 % CI: −3.73, 14.46), p = 0.25. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score at 4 weeks was significantly lower in USG-guided PR versus blind PR with a mean difference of −0.40 (95 % CI: −0.68, −0.33), p = 0.004.

Conclusion

When compared to blind PR, ultrasound-guided A1 PR for trigger finger was proven to be a safer and more economical method.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

181

审稿时长

92 days

期刊介绍： Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma (JCOT) aims to provide its readers with the latest clinical and basic research, and informed opinions that shape today''s orthopedic practice, thereby providing an opportunity to practice evidence-based medicine. With contributions from leading clinicians and researchers around the world, we aim to be the premier journal providing an international perspective advancing knowledge of the musculoskeletal system. JCOT publishes content of value to both general orthopedic practitioners and specialists on all aspects of musculoskeletal research, diagnoses, and treatment. We accept following types of articles: • Original articles focusing on current clinical issues. • Review articles with learning value for professionals as well as students. • Research articles providing the latest in basic biological or engineering research on musculoskeletal diseases. • Regular columns by experts discussing issues affecting the field of orthopedics. • "Symposia" devoted to a single topic offering the general reader an overview of a field, but providing the specialist current in-depth information. • Video of any orthopedic surgery which is innovative and adds to present concepts. • Articles emphasizing or demonstrating a new clinical sign in the art of patient examination is also considered for publication. Contributions from anywhere in the world are welcome and considered on their merits.