Abstract
Background: Trigger finger (TF) is a common referral to a hand surgeon, with people with diabetess being the most at-risk population. Abnormal thickening, scarring, and inflammation occur at the A1 pulley and flexor tendon, and histological changes correlate well with the clinical severity of TF. Corticosteroid injections decrease the thickness of the A1 pulley and are considered a first-line treatment. However, corticosteroids are only moderately effective, especially for people with diabetes. Patients may elect for surgery if nonoperative treatments prove ineffective; some may choose immediate surgical release instead. To release the A1 pulley, patients have the option of an open or percutaneous approach. The open approach has a greater risk of infection and scar tissue formation in the short run but an overall superior long-term outcome compared with the percutaneous approach. Methods: We critically reviewed the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the treatment methods for TF through a comprehensive search of the PubMed Database from 2003 to 2019. Results: To reduce costs, while still delivering the best possible care, it is critical to consider the likelihood of success for each treatment method in each subpopulation. Furthermore, some patients may need to return to work promptly, which ultimately may influence their desired treatment method. Conclusions: Currently, there is no universal treatment algorithm for TF. From a purely financial standpoint, women without diabetes presenting with a single triggering thumb should attempt 2 corticosteroid trials before percutaneous release. It is the most cost-effective for all other subpopulations to elect for immediate percutaneous release. © 2019 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.