4.2 Article

Efficacy of Corticosteroid Injection for Treatment of Trigger Finger: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages 433-441

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2018.1424970

Keywords

corticosteroid injection; efficacy; meta-analysis; trigger finger; non-surgery; surgery; recurrence

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid injection for trigger finger by performing a meta-analysis of all relevant studies. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroid injection with other treatments for trigger finger. Pooled summary estimates for outcomes, including success rate, relapse rate, visual analogue score (VAS) and complications, were calculated as standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk (RR) either on a fixed- or random-effect model via Stata 12.0 software. Results: Ten literatures involving 806 patients (387 in corticosteroid injection group and 419 in control group) were included. Pooled analysis showed there were no differences in the success rate, VAS and complications between patients undergoing corticosteroid injection and others. However, the relapse rate was significantly higher in patients treated with corticosteroid injection than that of other treatments (RR = 19.53, 95% CI = 6.23-61.19). Subgroup analysis indicated the efficacy of corticosteroid injection was superior to other non-surgical treatments (success rate: RR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.01-2.35), but inferior to surgery (success rate: RR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.48-0.63; relapse rate: RR = 21.15, 95% CI = 6.06-73.85; VAS: SMD = 3.49, 95% CI = 2.84-4.14). Conclusions: Corticosteroid injection may be an effective strategy for management of trigger finger, although surgery may be needed for some patients due to recurrence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available