International orthopaedics · 2024
Ultrasound-guided vs. non-guided trigger finger release: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Garcia Hélio Rubens Polido, Mund Eduardo, Romeiro Pedro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Trigger finger (TF) is a common hand condition that can be treated with surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether ultrasound-guided (US-guided) percutaneous surgery is superior to other conventional surgical methods.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing US-guided TF release with blind percutaneous or open approaches. We combined Risk Ratios (RR) and Mean Differences (MD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) across studies. Data processing and analysis were conducted using R software, version 4.3.1.
RESULTS: Our analysis included eight RCTs and two observational studies with 555 patients. US-guided surgery significantly reduced postoperative DASH scores (MD -3.75 points; 95% CI = -7.48, -0.02; p < 0.01), shortened time to resume activities (MD -11.52 days; 95% CI = -16.13, -6.91; p < 0.01), hastened discontinuation of oral analgesics (MD -4.44 days; 95% CI = -8.01, -0.87; p < 0.01), and improved patient satisfaction scores (RR 1.13; 95% CI = 1.04, 1.23; p = 0.75). There were no significant differences in VAS scores, time to movement recovery, or surgical success rate.
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided percutaneous release is a safe, effective, and superior alternative for treating TF compared to other methods, leading to improved DASH scores, quicker recovery, faster cessation of oral analgesics, and enhanced patient satisfaction.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing US-guided TF release with blind percutaneous or open approaches. We combined Risk Ratios (RR) and Mean Differences (MD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) across studies. Data processing and analysis were conducted using R software, version 4.3.1.
RESULTS: Our analysis included eight RCTs and two observational studies with 555 patients. US-guided surgery significantly reduced postoperative DASH scores (MD -3.75 points; 95% CI = -7.48, -0.02; p < 0.01), shortened time to resume activities (MD -11.52 days; 95% CI = -16.13, -6.91; p < 0.01), hastened discontinuation of oral analgesics (MD -4.44 days; 95% CI = -8.01, -0.87; p < 0.01), and improved patient satisfaction scores (RR 1.13; 95% CI = 1.04, 1.23; p = 0.75). There were no significant differences in VAS scores, time to movement recovery, or surgical success rate.
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided percutaneous release is a safe, effective, and superior alternative for treating TF compared to other methods, leading to improved DASH scores, quicker recovery, faster cessation of oral analgesics, and enhanced patient satisfaction.