Open Versus Percutaneous Fixation of Trigger Finger: Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: With variable and conflicting results to date, it remains unclear whether the percutaneous or open surgical A1 pulley release technique is superior regarding safety and efficacy. The goal of this meta-analysis was to compare the two techniques. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched through August 2023. Eight randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the eight included studies and 548 total patients, there were 278 subjects in the percutaneous release group and 270 subjects in the open release group. There was no significant difference between the two surgical techniques in postoperative rates of revision, complications, or pain. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found no significant difference between open and percutaneous techniques regarding the need for revision procedures, complications, or postoperative pain. Therefore, both open and percutaneous releases are appropriate. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic I.

Prevalence of asymptomatic TFCC tears on MRI: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies show a high prevalence of triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) tears in asymptomatic wrists. While a TFCC tear may be identified when evaluating ulnar sided wrist pain, this could be incidental and not the true cause of pain. The purpose of this review was to (1) examine the frequency of which TFCC tears are diagnosed on MRI in asymptomatic versus symptomatic wrists and (2) determine whether rates of asymptomatic TFCC tears are higher in two important subgroups commonly at risk for this pathology: elderly patients and high-impact athletes. METHODS: Articles of level IV or higher evidence were selected from PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Database to compare patient demographics, study parameters, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria with a total of 501 wrists (205 symptomatic and 296 asymptomatic). All studies included asymptomatic patients with wrist MR imaging and included information on the structural integrity of the TFCC. Variability in outcome measures reported across studies prevented the conduction of a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: TFCC abnormalities are present in patients of all ages, symptomatology, and levels of involvement in high-impact sports. Although, there are differences in tear and abnormality prevalence when comparing these three factors, the difference was not significant. Given these findings, using MRI to assess ulnar-sided wrist pain should be fortified with clinical suspicion, physical exam, and physician judgment.

Variability of the femoral mechanical-anatomical axis angle and its implications in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty.

Aims: Distal femoral resection in conventional total knee arthroplasty (TKA) utilizes an intramedullary guide to determine coronal alignment, commonly planned for 5° of valgus. However, a standard 5° resection angle may contribute to malalignment in patients with variability in the femoral anatomical and mechanical axis angle. The purpose of the study was to leverage deep learning (DL) to measure the femoral mechanical-anatomical axis angle (FMAA) in a heterogeneous cohort. Methods: Patients with full-limb radiographs from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were included. A DL workflow was created to measure the FMAA and validated against human measurements. To reflect potential intramedullary guide placement during manual TKA, two different FMAAs were calculated either using a line approximating the entire diaphyseal shaft, and a line connecting the apex of the femoral intercondylar sulcus to the centre of the diaphysis. The proportion of FMAAs outside a range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°) was calculated for both definitions, and FMAA was compared using univariate analyses across sex, BMI, knee alignment, and femur length. Results: The algorithm measured 1,078 radiographs at a rate of 12.6 s/image (2,156 unique measurements in 3.8 hours). There was no significant difference or bias between reader and algorithm measurements for the FMAA (p = 0.130 to 0.563). The FMAA was 6.3° (SD 1.0°; 25% outside range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°)) using definition one and 4.6° (SD 1.3°; 13% outside range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°)) using definition two. Differences between males and females were observed using definition two (males more valgus; p < 0.001). Conclusion: We developed a rapid and accurate DL tool to quantify the FMAA. Considerable variation with different measurement approaches for the FMAA supports that patient-specific anatomy and surgeon-dependent technique must be accounted for when correcting for the FMAA using an intramedullary guide. The angle between the mechanical and anatomical axes of the femur fell outside the range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°) for nearly a quarter of patients.