Single-Portal Antegrade Endoscopic Trigger Finger Release: Cadaveric and Clinical Outcomes

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to examine the relationship between anatomical surface landmarks in fresh frozen cadavers as related to in vivo endoscopic trigger finger release (ETFR) and present clinical outcomes after a single-portal antegrade ETFR technique. Methods: Endoscopic trigger finger release was performed on 40 cadaveric digits. Each digit was dissected and the following measurements were recorded: distance from palmar digital crease and A1 pulley, length of the A1 pulley, percentage of A1 pulley released, and injury to vulnerable anatomy. A retrospective chart review was performed on 48 patients (62 digits) treated with ETFR. Outcome measures included grip and pinch strength, range of motion, Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaires, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores. Results: Release of the A1 pulley was achieved in 33 of the 40 cadaveric digits (83%) with an A2 pulley laceration rate of 25%. No flexor tendon or neurovascular injuries occurred. Gross grasp, lateral pinch, 3-jaw chuck, and precision pinch strength had 85%, 90%, 82%, and 90% recovery, respectively. At the final follow-up, average metacarpophalangeal joint, proximal interphalangeal joint, and distal interphalangeal joint range of motion were within the normal limits. Mean VAS scores decreased from 5.7 preoperatively to 1.0 postoperatively and mean DASH score at the final follow-up was 4.8. Conclusions: With the use of anatomical surface landmarks, ETFR may be performed in an efficient and reproducible manner. Patients treated with ETFR had low complication rates, good functional recovery, and improved pain at short-term follow-up. Further study of long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of ETFR is warranted.

What’s New in Hand Surgery

“…The summary of this literature suggests that longitudinal column arthrodesis from the lunate to capitate and hamate to triquetrum is sufficient compared with 4-corner arthrodesis. Various methods of instrumentation for 2-corner arthrodesis achieved high rates of union, good patient-reported outcomes, and no clear advantage of 4-corner arthrodesis over 2-corner arthrodesis [15][16][17][18][19] . Other studies emphasized the importance of positioning the lunate appropriately on the capitate in terms of coverage and neutral longitudinal alignment for long-term wrist range of motion and pain relief 20 .…”