Biomechanics Laboratory, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Department of Epidemiology, Singapore Clinical Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 14;4(4):CD012789. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012789.pub2.
Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration, inflammation, and swelling. This causes pain and restricted movement of the affected finger. Non-surgical treatment options include activity modification, oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), splinting, and local injections with anti-inflammatory drugs.
To review the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus placebo, glucocorticoids, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route for trigger finger.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO trials portal until 30 September 2020. We applied no language or publication status restrictions.
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of adult participants with trigger finger that compared NSAIDs administered topically, orally, or by injection versus placebo, glucocorticoid, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route.
Two or more review authors independently screened the reports, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The seven major outcomes were resolution of trigger finger symptoms, persistent moderate or severe symptoms, recurrence of symptoms, total active range of finger motion, residual pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Two RCTs conducted in an outpatient hospital setting were included (231 adult participants, mean age 58.6 years, 60% female, 95% to 100% moderate to severe disease). Both studies compared a single injection of a non-selective NSAID (12.5 mg diclofenac or 15.0 mg ketorolac) given at lower than normal doses with a single injection of a glucocorticoid (triamcinolone 20 mg or 5 mg), with maximum follow-up duration of 12 weeks or 24 weeks. In both studies, we detected risk of attrition and performance bias. One study also had risk of selection bias. The effects of treatment were sensitive to assumptions about missing outcomes. All seven outcomes were reported in one study, and five in the other. NSAID injection may offer little to no benefit over glucocorticoid injection, based on low- to very low-certainty evidence from two trials. Evidence was downgraded for bias and imprecision. There may be little to no difference between groups in resolution of symptoms at 12 to 24 weeks (34% with NSAIDs, 41% with glucocorticoids; absolute effect 7% lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% lower to 5% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). The rate of persistent moderate to severe symptoms may be higher at 12 to 24 weeks in the NSAIDs group (28%) compared to the glucocorticoid group (14%) (absolute effect 14% higher, 95% CI 2% to 33% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.46; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs result in fewer recurrences at 12 to 24 weeks (1%) compared to glucocorticoid (21%) (absolute effect 20% lower, 95% CI 21% to 13% lower; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in mean total active motion at 24 weeks (235 degrees with NSAIDs, 240 degrees with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 5% lower, 95% CI 34.54% lower to 24.54% higher; 1 study, 99 participants; MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54 to 24.54; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in residual pain at 12 to 24 weeks (20% with NSAIDs, 24% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 11% lower to 7% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in participant-reported treatment success at 24 weeks (64% with NSAIDs, 68% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 18% lower to 15% higher; 1 study, 121 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAID injection has an effect on adverse events at 12 to 24 weeks (1% with NSAIDs, 1% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 0% difference, 95% CI 2% lower to 3% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.42; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For adults with trigger finger, by 24 weeks' follow-up, results from two trials show that compared to glucocorticoid injection, NSAID injection offered little to no benefit in the treatment of trigger finger. Specifically, there was no difference in resolution, symptoms, recurrence, total active motion, residual pain, participant-reported treatment success, or adverse events.
扳机指是一种常见的手部疾病,当手指屈肌腱穿过第一环形 (A1) 滑车时,由于退化、炎症和肿胀而导致运动受限。这会引起受影响手指的疼痛和运动受限。非手术治疗选择包括活动调整、口服和局部非甾体抗炎药 (NSAIDs)、夹板和局部注射抗炎药物。
回顾非甾体抗炎药 (NSAIDs) 与安慰剂、糖皮质激素或通过相同途径给予的不同 NSAIDs 治疗扳机指的益处和危害。
我们检索了 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、CNKI(中国国家知识基础设施)、ProQuest 学位论文和 ProQuest 学位论文全文数据库、www.ClinicalTrials.gov 和世界卫生组织试验门户,检索截止日期为 2020 年 9 月 30 日。我们没有对语言或出版状态施加任何限制。
我们检索了随机对照试验 (RCT) 和准随机试验,纳入了成年参与者的扳机指,这些参与者接受了局部、口服或注射给予的 NSAIDs 与安慰剂、糖皮质激素或通过相同途径给予的不同 NSAIDs 进行比较。
两名或多名综述作者独立筛选报告、提取数据,并评估风险偏倚和证据的 GRADE 确定性。七个主要结局是扳机指症状的缓解、持续中度或重度症状、症状复发、手指主动活动范围、残留疼痛、患者满意度和不良事件。治疗效果以风险比 (RR) 和均数差值 (MD) 及其 95%置信区间 (CI) 表示。
纳入了两项在门诊医院环境中进行的 RCT(231 名成年参与者,平均年龄 58.6 岁,60%为女性,95%至 100%为中重度疾病)。这两项研究均比较了低于正常剂量的单次注射非选择性 NSAID(12.5 毫克双氯芬酸或 15.0 毫克酮咯酸)与单次注射糖皮质激素(曲安奈德 20 毫克或 5 毫克),随访时间最长为 12 周或 24 周。在这两项研究中,我们都检测到了失访和实施偏倚的风险。其中一项研究还存在选择偏倚的风险。治疗效果对缺失结局的假设敏感。一项研究报告了所有七种结局,另一项研究报告了其中五种结局。在 12 至 24 周的随访中,NSAID 注射与糖皮质激素注射相比,可能没有益处,基于两项试验的低至非常低确定性证据。证据因偏倚和不精确而降级。在 12 至 24 周时,两组在症状缓解方面可能没有差异(34%接受 NSAIDs 治疗,41%接受糖皮质激素治疗;绝对效果低 7%,95%CI 低 16%至高 5%;2 项研究,231 名参与者;RR 0.83,95%CI 0.62 至 1.11;低确定性证据)。在 12 至 24 周时,与糖皮质激素组(14%)相比,NSAIDs 组持续中度至重度症状的比例可能更高(28%)(绝对效果高 14%,95%CI 高 2%至 33%;2 项研究,231 名参与者;RR 2.03,95%CI 1.19 至 3.46;低确定性证据)。我们不确定 NSAIDs 是否会导致 12 至 24 周时的复发率低于糖皮质激素(1%比 21%)(绝对效果低 20%,95%CI 高 21%至低 13%;2 项研究,231 名参与者;RR 0.07,95%CI 0.01 至 0.38;非常低确定性证据)。在 24 周时,两组的总主动运动范围可能没有差异(235 度接受 NSAIDs 治疗,240 度接受糖皮质激素治疗)(绝对效果低 5%,95%CI 低 34.54%至高 24.54%;1 项研究,99 名参与者;MD-5.00,95%CI-34.54 至 24.54;低确定性证据)。在 12 至 24 周时,两组的残留疼痛可能没有差异(20%接受 NSAIDs 治疗,24%接受糖皮质激素治疗)(绝对效果低 4%,95%CI 高 11%至低 7%;2 项研究,231 名参与者;RR 0.84,95%CI 0.54 至 1.31;低确定性证据)。在 24 周时,两组的患者报告的治疗成功率可能没有差异(64%接受 NSAIDs 治疗,68%接受糖皮质激素治疗)(绝对效果低 4%,95%CI 高 18%至低 15%;1 项研究,121 名参与者;RR 0.95,95%CI 0.74 至 1.23;低确定性证据)。我们不确定 NSAID 注射在 12 至 24 周时对不良事件是否有影响(1%接受 NSAIDs 治疗,1%接受糖皮质激素治疗)(绝对效果低 0%,95%CI 高 2%至高 3%;2 项研究,231 名参与者;RR 2.00,95%CI 0.19 至 21.42;非常低确定性证据)。
对于扳机指患者,两项试验的结果显示,与糖皮质激素注射相比,24 周时 NSAID 注射在扳机指治疗中没有益处。具体来说,在症状缓解、症状、复发、总主动运动、残留疼痛、患者报告的治疗成功率或不良事件方面,两组之间没有差异。