Search

Background: Surgery, needle fasciotomy, and collagenase injection are used to treat Dupuytren contracture. The treatment decision requires balancing initial morbidity and costs of surgery against its potential long-term benefits over needle fasciotomy and collagenase., Objective: To compare the effectiveness of surgery, needle fasciotomy, and collagenase injection at 3 months and 2 years (secondary time points of the trial)., Design: A multicenter, randomized, outcome assessor-blinded, superiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03192020)., Setting: 6 public hospitals in Finland., Participants: 302 persons with treatment-naive Dupuytren contracture (contracture angle <135°)., Intervention: Surgery ( n  = 101), needle fasciotomy ( n  = 101), or collagenase ( n  = 100)., Measurements: The primary outcome was the success rate, defined as greater than 50% contracture release and patients reaching the patient acceptable symptom state. Secondary outcomes included hand function, pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction, residual contracture angle, finger flexion, risk for retreatment, and serious adverse events., Results: A total of 292 (97%) and 284 (94%) participants completed the 3-month and 2-year follow-ups. Success rates were similar at 3 months: 71% (95% CI, 62% to 80%) for surgery, 73% (CI, 64% to 82%) for needle fasciotomy, and 73% (CI, 64% to 82%) for collagenase. At 2 years, surgery had superior success rates compared with both needle fasciotomy (78% vs. 50%; adjusted risk difference [aRD], 0.30 [CI, 0.17 to 0.43]) and collagenase (78% vs. 65%; aRD, 0.13 [CI, 0.01 to 0.26]). Secondary analyses paralleled with the primary analysis., Limitation: Participants were not blinded., Conclusion: Initial outcomes are similar between the treatments, but at 2 years success rates were maintained in the surgery group but were lower with both needle fasciotomy and collagenase despite retreatments., Primary Funding Source: Research Council of Finland., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-1485.

Background: Scapholunate advanced collapse (SLAC) and scaphoid non-union advanced collapse (SNAC) are common types of wrist osteoarthritis (OA). Non-operative treatment consists of pain medication, splinting, and avoiding activities that induce pain. However, in case a course of conservative treatment is unsuccessful, operative treatment is needed. The two most conventional operative approaches for SLAC/SNAC OA are four-corner arthrodesis (FCA) and proximal row carpectomy (PRC). Although FCA is the gold-standard operative technique and may lead to superior grip strength, the evident benefit of PRC is that it obviates any need for hardware removal and controlling for bony union. To date, no high-quality randomized controlled trial comparing FCA and PRC exists. As clinical outcomes seem comparable, a trial that assesses patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, and secondary operations may guide clinical decision making between these two procedures. Thus, the aim of this multi-institutional double-blind randomized controlled trial is to study whether PRC is non-inferior to FCA in treating SLAC/SNAC OA. We hypothesize that PRC is non-inferior to FCA with lower economic expanses., Methods: The trial is designed as a randomized, controlled, patient- and outcome-assessor blinded multicenter, two-armed 1:1 non-inferiority trial. Patients with SLAC/SNAC-induced wrist pain meeting trial inclusion criteria will undergo wrist arthroscopy to further assess eligibility. Each patient eligible for the trial will be randomly assigned to undergo either FCA or PRC. The primary endpoint of this study is the Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) at 1-year after FCA versus PRC. Secondary outcomes include Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, EQ-5D-5L, pain, grip strength, wrist active range of motion, radiographic evaluation, and adverse events. Trial design, methods, and statistical analysis plan will be presented here., Discussion: We present an RCT design comparing FCA vs PRC for SLAC/SNAC-induced OA. The results of this trial will assist in decision making when planning surgery for SLAC/SNAC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04260165 . Registered February 7, 2020., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Patient-rated wrist/hand evaluation (PRWHE) are patient-reported outcomes frequently used for evaluating pain and function of the wrist and hand. The aim of this study was to determine thresholds for minimal important difference (MID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for NRS pain and PRWHE instruments in patients with base of thumb osteoarthritis., Methods: Fifty-two patients with symptomatic base of thumb osteoarthritis wore a splint for six weeks before undergoing trapeziectomy. NRS pain (0 to 10) and PRWHE (0 to 100) were collected at the time of recruitment (baseline), after splint immobilization prior to surgery, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. Four anchor-based methods were used to determine MID for NRS pain and PRWHE: the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change (MDC), the mean change (MC) and the predictive modelling methods. Two approaches were used to determine PASS for NRS pain and PRWHE: the 75 th percentile and the ROC curve methods. The anchor question for MID was the change perceived by the patient compared with baseline; the anchor question for PASS was whether the patient would be satisfied if the condition were to stay similar. The correlation between the transition anchor at baseline and the outcome at all time points combined was calculated using the Spearman's rho analysis., Results: The MID for NRS pain was 2.5 using the ROC curve method, 2.0 using the MDC method, 2.8 using the MC method, and 2.5 using the predictive modelling method. The corresponding MIDs for PRWHE were 22, 24, 10, and 20. The PASS values for NRS pain and PRWHE were 2.5 and 30 using the ROC curve method, and 2.0 and 22 using the 75th percentile method, respectively. The area under curve (AUC) analyses showed excellent discrimination for all measures., Conclusion: We found credible MID estimates for NRS and PRWHE (including its subscales), although the MID estimates varied depending on the method used. The estimates were 20-30% of the range of scores of the instruments. The cut-offs for MID and PASS showed good or excellent discrimination, lending support for their use in future studies., Trial Registration: This clinimetrics study was approved by the Helsinki University ethical review board (HUS1525/2017)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Trigger finger is a common hand disorder that limits finger range of motion and causes pain and snapping of the affected finger. Trigger finger is caused by an imbalance of the tendon sheath and the flexor tendon. The initial treatment is generally a local corticosteroid injection around the first annular (A1) pulley. However, it is not unusual that surgical release of the A1 pulley is required. Moreover, adverse events after local corticosteroid injection or operative treatment may occur. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been shown to be safe and to reduce symptoms in different tendon pathologies, such as DeQuervain's disease. However, the effects of PRP on trigger finger have not been studied. The aim of this single-center triple-blind randomized controlled trial is to study whether PRP is non-inferior to corticosteroid injection in treating trigger finger. The secondary outcome is to assess the safety and efficacy of PRP in comparison to placebo., Methods: The trial is designed as a randomized, controlled, patient-, investigator-, and outcome assessor-blinded, single-center, three-armed 1:1:1 non-inferiority trial. The patients with clinical symptoms of trigger finger will be randomly assigned to treatment with PRP, corticosteroid, or normal saline injection. The primary outcome is Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation and symptom resolution. Secondary outcomes include Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; pain; grip strength; finger active range of motion; and complications. Appropriate statistical methods will be applied., Discussion: We present a novel RCT study design on the use of PRP for the treatment of trigger finger compared to corticosteroid and normal saline injection. The results of the trial will indicate if PRP is appropriate for the treatment of trigger finger., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04167098 . Registered on November 18, 2019.