Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Neuroradiology and Musculoskeletal Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Radiol Med. 2024 Oct;129(10):1513-1521. doi: 10.1007/s11547-024-01875-y. Epub 2024 Aug 27.
To assess and compare two ultrasound-guided, minimally invasive procedures to release the A1-pulley (needle release and thread release) regarding efficacy and safety in an anatomical specimen model.
Twenty-one ultrasound-guided needle releases and 20 ultrasound-guided thread releases were performed on digits of Thiel-embalmed anatomical specimens. A scoring system was developed to assess ultrasound visibility, intervention outcome (incomplete, almost complete, or full transection of the A1 pulley), and injury to adjacent structures (neurovascular structures, tendons, A2 pulley). Statistical analysis was performed to compare the score of the two groups (group 1: needle release,group 2: thread release). A P-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.
Needle release was completely successful in 15 cases (71.5%), almost complete release was achieved in four cases (19%), and incomplete transection occurred in two cases (9.5%). Thread release was completely successful in 17 cases (85%), and almost complete transection was observed in the remaining three cases (15%). In both procedures no neurovascular structures were harmed. Slight injury of flexor tendons occurred in two cases (9.5%) in needle release and in five cases (25%) in thread release. There were no significant statistical differences between the groups regarding ultrasound visibility, intervention safety and outcome, (P > 0.05).
Ultrasound-guided needle release and ultrasound-guided thread release have similar success of release, both being effective and safe techniques for the release of the A1 pulley.
评估和比较两种超声引导下的微创方法(针刀松解和线切松解)在解剖标本模型中释放 A1 滑车的疗效和安全性。
对经蒂尔(Thiel)固定的解剖标本的手指进行了 21 次超声引导下针刀松解和 20 次超声引导下线切松解。制定了评分系统,以评估超声可视性、干预效果(A1 滑车不完全、几乎完全或完全切开)和对邻近结构(神经血管结构、肌腱、A2 滑车)的损伤。对两组(组 1:针刀松解,组 2:线切松解)的评分进行了统计学分析。P 值≤0.05 被认为有统计学意义。
针刀松解 15 例(71.5%)完全成功,4 例(19%)几乎完全松解,2 例(9.5%)不完全切开。线切松解 17 例(85%)完全成功,其余 3 例(15%)几乎完全切开。两种方法均未损伤神经血管结构。针刀松解中有 2 例(9.5%)轻微损伤屈肌腱,线切松解中有 5 例(25%)。两组在超声可视性、干预安全性和效果方面无统计学差异(P>0.05)。
超声引导下针刀松解和超声引导下线切松解在 A1 滑车的释放方面均具有相似的成功率,是释放 A1 滑车的有效且安全的技术。