Der Orthopäde

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 202–206 | Cite as

Stenosing tenosynovitis

Evaluation of percutaneous release with a specially designed needle vs. open surgery
  • Peng Xie
  • Qi-hao Zhang
  • Gui-zhou Zheng
  • De-zhong Liu
  • Hou-guang Miao
  • Wei-fang Zhang
  • Jian-feng Ye
  • Shi-xin DuEmail author
  • Xue-dong LiEmail author



The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of conventional open surgery and percutaneous release with a specially designed needle for treating stenosing tenosynovitis in terms of cure, relapse and complication rates.


In this study 89 fingers from 76 patients were randomly assigned and allocated to one of the treatment groups. A total of 37 patients were treated with open surgery in group 1 and 39 patients with percutaneous release using a specially designed needle in group 2. A patient-based 4-inch visual analogue scale (VAS), Quinnell grading (QG), disability of arm shoulder and hand (DASH) score and finger total joint range of motion (FTROM) score were evaluated before treatment and after 7, 30 and 180 days. When finger QG scores were equal or greater than 2 points at follow-up at 180 days this was defined as recurrence..


There were no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05) in terms of VAS, DASH and QG scores and the degree of FTROM. At 7 days all the data were significantly different (p < 0.05) compared with preoperative data, 30 days was significantly different (p < 0.05) compared with 7 days while at 180 days no significant differences could be found (p > 0.05) compared with 30 days. The recurrence rate in group 1 was 4.65% and 6.55% in group 2.


The percutaneous release and open surgery methods displayed similar effectiveness regarding the cure and recurrence of trigger finger disorder. The use of a specially designed needle for release is a safe and reliable method.


Tendon entrapment Surgical procedures, operative Trigger finger disorder Conservative treatment Prospective study 



Disability of the arm, shoulder and hand


Finger total joint range of motion


Quinnell grading


Rheumatoid arthritis


Visual analogue scale

Stenosierende Tenosynovitis

Evaluation der perkutanen Ringbandspaltung mit einer speziell entwickelten Nadel vs. offene Operation



Der Zweck dieser Studie war es, die Wirksamkeit der konventionellen offenen Operation und der perkutanen Ringbandspaltung mit einer speziell entwickelten Nadel zur Behandlung einer stenosierenden Tenosynovitis bezüglich Heilung, Rezidiv und Komplikationsraten zu evaluieren.


In dieser Studie wurden 89 Finger von 76 Patienten randomisiert zugeordnet und einer der Behandlungsgruppen zugeteilt. Insgesamt 37 Patienten erhielten eine offene Operation in Gruppe 1 und 39 Patienten eine perkutane Ringbandspaltung mittels einer speziell entwickelten Nadel in Gruppe 2. Eine patientenbasierte 10 cm visuelle Analogskala (VAS), die Klassifizierung nach Quinnell (QG), der Disability-of-Arm-Shoulder-and-Hand(DASH)-Score und der Finger-Total-Joint-Range-of-Motion(FTROM)-Score wurden vor sowie 7, 30 und 180 Tage nach der Behandlung untersucht. Betrug der Finger-QG-Score beim Follow-up 2 oder mehr Punkte, wurde dies als Rezidiv definiert.


Es gab keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen den beiden Gruppen (p > 0,05) bezüglich der VAS-, DASH- und QG-Scores sowie hinsichtlich des Grades der FTROM. Nach 7 Tagen zeigte sich ein signifikanter Unterschied bei allen Werten (p < 0,05), nach 30 Tagen war der Unterschied signifikant (p < 0,05) im Vergleich zu 7 Tagen, während nach 180 Tagen kein signifikanter Unterschied festgestellt werden konnte (p < 0,05). Die Rezidivrate in Gruppe 1 betrug 4,65% und 6,55% in Gruppe 2.


Die perkutane Ringbandspaltung und die offenen Operationsverfahren zeigten eine ähnliche Wirksamkeit bezüglich der Heilung und des Auftretens eines Rezidivs bei der Behandlung eines schnellenden Fingers. Die Verwendung einer speziell entwickelten Nadel für die Spaltung stellt eine sichere und verlässliche Methode dar.


Sehneneinklemmung Operationsverfahren Schnellender Finger Konservative Behandlung Prospektive Studie 



The authors would like to thank the students and staffs who participated in discussion as well as help and comments on this study.

Author contributions

Xue-dong Li and Shi-xin Du are corresponding author and organized the study. Gui-zhou Zheng and Peng Xie analyzed the data. Qi-hao Zhang, Wei-fang Zhang, Hou-guang Miao and Jian-feng Ye performed experiments. Qi-hao Zhang, De-zhong Liu and Hou-guang Miao drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


The study was supported by Science and technology Research and Development Foundation of Shenzhen (JCYJ20160429172357751).

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

P. Xie, Q.-h. Zhang, G.-z. Zheng, D.-z. Liu, H.-g. Miao, W.-f. Zhang, J.-f. Ye, S.-x. Du and X.-d. Li declare that they have no competing interests.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1975 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All subjects provided written informed consent in accordance with institutional policies.


  1. 1.
    Mishra SR, Gaur AK, Choudhary MM, Ramesh J (2013) Percutaneous a1 pulley release by the tip of a 20-g hypodermic needle before open surgical procedure in trigger finger management. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 17(2):112–115Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weilby A (1970) Trigger finger. Incidence in children and adults and the possibility of a predisposition in certain age groups. Acta Orthop Scand 41(4):419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murphy D, Failla JM, Koniuch MP (1995) Steroid versus placebo injection for trigger finger. J Hand Surg Am 20(4):628–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Will R, Lubahn J (2010) Complications of open trigger finger release. J Hand Surg 35(4):594–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryzewicz M, Wolf JM (2006) Trigger digits: principles, management, and complications. J Hand Surg 31(1):135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kraemer BA, Young VL, Arfken C (1990) Stenosing flexor tenosynovitis. South Med J 83(7):806–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Godey SK, Bhatti WA, Watson JS, Bayat A (2006) A technique for accurate and safe injection of steroid in trigger digits using ultrasound guidance. Acta Orthop Belg 72(5):633–634Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chambers RG Jr (2009) Corticosteroid injections for trigger finger. Am Fam Physician 80(5):454–455Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taras JS, Raphael JS, Pan WT, Movagharnia F, Sotereanos DG (1998) Corticosteroid injections for trigger digits: is intrasheath injection necessary? J Hand Surg 23(4):717–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldfarb CA, Gelberman RH, Mckeon K, Chia B, Boyer MI (2007) Extra-articular steroid injection: early patient response and the incidence of flare reaction. J Hand Surg 32(10):1513–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kazuki K, Egi T, Okada M, Takaoka K (2006) Clinical outcome of extrasynovial steroid injection for trigger finger. Hand Surg 11(1–2):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Colbourn J, Heath N, Manary S, Pacifico D (2008) Effectiveness of splinting for the treatment of trigger finger. J Hand Ther 21(4):336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park J, Dumanian GA (2009) Shower emboli and digital necrosis after a single corticosteroid injection for trigger thumb: case report. J Hand Surg 34(2):313–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turowski GA, Zdankiewicz PD, Thomson JG (1997) The results of surgical treatment of trigger finger. J Hand Surg Am 22(1):145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thorpe AP (1988) Results of surgery for trigger finger. J Hand Surg Br 13(2):199–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quinnell RC (1980) Conservative management of trigger finger. Practitioner 224(1340):187–190Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shakeel H, Ahmad TS (2012) Steroid injection versus nsaid injection for trigger finger: a comparative study of early outcomes. J Hand Surg Am 37(7):1319–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilhelmi BJ, Mowlavi A, Neumeister MW, Bueno R, Lee WP (2003) Safe treatment of trigger finger with longitudinal and transverse landmarks: an anatomic study of the border fingers for percutaneous release. Plast Reconstr Surg 112(4):993–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fiorini HJ, Santos JBG, Hirakawa CK, Sato ES, Faloppa F, Albertoni WM (2011) Anatomical study of the a1 pulley: length and location by means of cutaneous landmarks on the palmar surface. J Hand Surg Am 36(3):464–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peng Xie
    • 1
  • Qi-hao Zhang
    • 1
  • Gui-zhou Zheng
    • 1
  • De-zhong Liu
    • 2
  • Hou-guang Miao
    • 1
  • Wei-fang Zhang
    • 1
  • Jian-feng Ye
    • 1
  • Shi-xin Du
    • 1
    Email author
  • Xue-dong Li
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of OrthopedicsThe Third Affiliated Hospital (The Affiliated Luohu Hospital) of Shenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina
  2. 2.Department of Emergency, First Affiliated HospitalShantou University Medical CollegeShantouChina

Personalised recommendations