超声引导下与盲目腱鞘松解治疗扳机指的疗效和安全性比较：一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Comparison of efficacy and safety of USG-guided versus blind pulley release for trigger finger: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
作者信息
Rohilla Rachna, Kaur Harmeet, Tiwari Punit
机构信息
Department of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, Punjab, India.
Department of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, Punjab, India.
出版信息
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2024 Oct 28;58:102795. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102795. eCollection 2024 Nov.
BACKGROUND
To compare the efficacy and safety of the USG-guided vs blind pulley release (PR) for Trigger Finger by performing a meta-analysis of all relevant studies in the published literature.
METHODS
A thorough and methodical search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was carried out. Review Manager Software (RevMan) 5.4.1 was used to analyze the extracted data, and the results were displayed as forest plots with matching 95 % confidence intervals.
RESULTS
The primary efficacy outcome i.e. residual triggering was significantly lower in USG-guided PR as compared to blind PR with a risk ratio of 0.16 (95 % CI 0.03-0.87), p = 0.03. The primary safety outcome i.e., percentage of complications was lower in the USG-guided procedure group, although the result was not statistically significant with a risk ratio of 0.25 (95 % CI 0.05-1.16), p = 0.08 with I of 0 %. The operation time was longer in the USG-guided PR as compared to the blind procedure, although the difference was not statistically significant with a mean difference of 5.36 (95 % CI: -3.73, 14.46), p = 0.25. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score at 4 weeks was significantly lower in USG-guided PR versus blind PR with a mean difference of -0.40 (95 % CI: -0.68, -0.33), p = 0.004.
CONCLUSION
When compared to blind PR, ultrasound-guided A1 PR for trigger finger was proven to be a safer and more economical method.
背景
通过对已发表文献中所有相关研究进行荟萃分析，比较超声引导下与盲法腱鞘松解术（PR）治疗扳机指的疗效和安全性。
方法
对PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行全面且系统的检索。使用Review Manager软件（RevMan）5.4.1分析提取的数据，结果以带有匹配95%置信区间的森林图形式呈现。
结果
主要疗效指标即残留扳机现象在超声引导下PR组显著低于盲法PR组，风险比为0.16（95%CI 0.03 - 0.87），p = 0.03。主要安全性指标即并发症发生率在超声引导下手术组较低，尽管结果无统计学意义，风险比为0.25（95%CI 0.05 - 1.16），p = 0.08，I²为0%。超声引导下PR的手术时间比盲法手术长，尽管差异无统计学意义，平均差为5.36（95%CI：-3.73，14.46），p = 0.25。超声引导下PR术后4周的视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分显著低于盲法PR，平均差为-0.40（95%CI：-0.68，-0.33），p = 0.004。
结论
与盲法PR相比，超声引导下A1腱鞘松解术治疗扳机指被证明是一种更安全、更经济的方法。
Zotero 插件