Tetik Parmak Cerrahisinde Longitudinal insizyon mu? Transvers insizyon mu?

GİRİŞ ve AMAÇ: Cerrahi uygulanan tetik parmak hastalarında, longitudinal insizyon ile transvers insizyon arasında fark olup olmadığı değerlendirildi. YÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: Çalışmaya, Kasım 2017 ile Ekim 2018 tarihleri arasında tetik parmak cerrahisi yapılan 24 hasta (16 bayan, 8 erkek) dahil edildi. Bu hastalar Wolfe sınıflamasına göre değerlendirildi. Bu hastalarda yineleme oranı ve memnuniyet oranları değerlendirildi. Cerrahi sonrası sinir hasarı, yara yeri enfeksiyonu ve yarada açılma gibi komplikasyonlar değerlendirilmiştir. BULGULAR: Hastaların yaş ortalaması 51,4 (32-72). Wolfe sınıflamasına göre 10 (%41,6) olgu evre 2, 14 (%58,4) olgu evre 3 idi. Hastaların 16’sı (%66,7) bayan, 8’i (%33,3) erkek idi. Hastalar ortalama 8 ay (5-11) takip edildi. Her 2 grupta da yineleme izlenmedi. Hastaların tamamı, cerrahi tedaviden memnun kaldıklarını belirtti. TARTIŞMA ve SONUÇ: Tetik parmak cerrahisi; nüks ve komplikasyon gelişmemesi açısından yararlı bir yöntem olmakla birlikte, uygulanan iki ayrı cerrahi insizyon arasında fark olmadığı görüldü.

Surgical treatment of trigger finger? Longitudinal incision versus transverse incision?

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of longitudinal incision versus transverse incision in the surgical treatment of trigger finger. METHODS: Between November 2017 and October 2018, a total of 24 patients who were surgically treated for trigger finger using longitudinal incision or transverse incision were included. Trigger finger was graded according to the Wolfe classification. The rates of recurrence and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Postoperative complications including nerve injury, wound site infection, and wound dehiscence were noted. RESULTS: Of the patients, 16 (66.7%) were females and 8 (33.3%) were males with a mean age of 51.4 (range, 32 to 72) years. The mean follow-up was 8 (range, 5 to 11) months. According to the Wolfe classification, 10 patients (41.6%) had Grade 2 and 14 patients (58.4%) Grad 3 disease. A longitudinal incision was used in 12 patients (50%), while a transverse incision was used in 12 patients (50%). None of the patients had recurrence after surgery. Patient satisfaction was achieved in all patients operated. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our study results suggest that surgical treatment of trigger finger is an effective method without any recurrence or complication and both incision techniques yield similar outcomes.

PDF

___

1. Chuang XL, Ooi CC, Chin ST, Png MA,Wong SK, Tay SC et al. What triggers in trigger finger? The flexor tendons at the flexor digitorum superficialis bifurcation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70:1411-19.
2. Amirfeyz R, McNinch R, Watts A, Rodrigues J, Davis TRC, Glassey N et al. Evidence-based management of adult trigger digits. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2017;42:473-80.
3. Lim MH, Lim KK, Rasheed MZ, Narayanan S, Beng-Hoi Tan A. Outcome of open trigger digit release. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2007;32:457-9.
4. Ger E, Kupcha P, Ger D. The management of trigger thumb in children. J Hand Surg Am. 1991;16:944-7.
5. Wolfe SW. Tenosynovitis. In:Green DP(ed). Operative hand surgery, 5th edition. New York, Churchill Livingstone 2005;2137-59.
6. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and Pain Scales. Spine J 2008;8:968-974.
7. Sbernardori MC, Bandiera P. Histopathology of the A1 pulley in adult trigger fingers. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2007;32:556-9.
8. Koch AR, Vaandrager JM. Good results with the surgical treatment of trigger finger (tendovaginitis stenosans). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1991;135:1124-7.
9. Turowski GA, Zdankiewicz PD, Thomson JG. The results of surgical treatment of trigger finger. J Hand Surg Am. 1997;22:145-9.
10. Lange-Riess D, Schuh R, Hönle W, Schuh A. Long-term results of surgical release of trigger finger and trigger thumb in adults. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009;129:1617-9.
11. Gancarczyk SM, Strauch RJ. Carpal tunnel syndrome and trigger digit: common diagnoses that occur ‘’hand in hand’’. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38:1635-7.
12. Stefanich RJ, Peimer CA. Longitudinal incision for trigger finger release. J Hand Surg Am. 1989;14:316-7.
13. Kloeters O, Ulrich DJ, Bloemsma G, van Houdt CI. Comparison of three different incision techniques in A1 pulley release on scar tissue formation and postopearative rehabilitation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136:731-7.
14. Tada K, Suganuma S, Segawa T, Asada N, Tsuchiya H. Keloid formation after trigger finger release: a case report. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66:864-6.
15. Will R, Lubahn J. Complications of open trigger finger release. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35:594-6.
16. Everding NG, Bishop GB, Belyea CM, Soong MC. Risk factors for complications of open trigger finger release. Hand (N Y) 2015;10:297-300.