Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Ultrasound-guided acupotomy for trigger finger: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 18, Article number: 678 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Trigger finger is a common condition in the hand, and ultrasound-guided acupotomy for trigger finger has been widely used in recent years.

Purpose

This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided acupotomy for trigger finger.

Methods

We searched for relevant studies in the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Embase, PubMed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wanfang Data, and other resources from their inception to January 2023. Randomized controlled trials of ultrasound-guided acupotomy for trigger finger were included. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1.

Results

Overall, 15 studies with 988 patients were included. The experimental group was treated with ultrasound-guided acupotomy, and the Control group received traditional acupotomy, traditional operation or injection of medication. Meta-analysis showed that the overall clinical effectiveness (OR = 4.83; 95% CI 2.49–9.37; I2 = 73.1%; P < 0.001) in the experimental group was significantly better than that of the control group. And the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score (WMD =  − 1; 95% CI − 1.24, − 0.76; I2 = 99%; P < 0.001), the QuinneII classification (WMD = − 0.84; 95% CI − 1.28, − 0.39; I2 = 99.1%, P < 0.001), the incidence of complications (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.11, 0.63; I2 = 0%, P = 0.003), and the recurrence rate (RR = 0.14; 95% CI 0.03, 0.74; I2 = 0%; P = 0.021) were significantly lower in the experimental group.

Conclusion

Our systematic review and meta-analysis can prove the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided acupotomy in the treatment of trigger finger, but this still needs to be verified by a clinical standard large sample test.

Introduction

Trigger finger, also known as stenosing flexor tenosynovitis, is a common condition in the hand, characterized by catching, clicking, or locking of the fingers [1]. The etiology is versatile, including trauma, diabetes mellitus and inflammatory arthropathy. The most common pathology is flexor tendon nodules, stenosis of the pulley system, or a combination [2]. More women suffer from this disease than men. And the ring finger and thumb are the most prevalent trigger fingers [1].

Treatments for trigger finger include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs), massage, heat, ice, splinting, corticosteroid injections, extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), and surgery [3]. In recent years, acupotomy has been popularly used in clinical treatment in China [4]. Acupotomy is a modern type of acupuncture that uses a blade-needle combined with a flat surgical scalpel at its tip. Acupotomy can strip adhesions and release contractures of deep soft tissues [5]. And the mechanism of trigger finger treatment by acupotomy is similar to percutaneous A1 pulley release. The advantages of acupotomy for the trigger finger include a small wound size, short treatment time, high efficacy rate, and low recurrence rate.

However, the safety of acupotomy has often been questioned because it is a closed procedure that relies on sensations in the hands. Tendons, blood vessels and nerves may be injured during the treatment [6]. To solve this problem, ultrasound-guided acupotomy for the trigger finger has been widely used in recent years [7]. On the one hand, ultrasound images can clearly show the structural level of tissues, enabling us to accurately identify the location and type of lesions, and on the other hand, ultrasound images can accurately show the location of the acupotomy and its relationship with adjacent tissues with good accuracy and safety [8]. Studies have reported that ultrasound-guided acupotomy for the treatment of patients with cervical spondylosis [9], osteoarthritis of the knee [10] and tenosynovitis [11] improves clinical efficacy and safety. Pan et al. [12] reported that ultrasound-guided acupotomy for the trigger finger accurately revealed the width and location of the lesion while no complications occurred.

However, to date, there has been no systematic review or research project on ultrasound-guided acupotomy for trigger finger treatment. Therefore, this study analyzed and evaluated the clinical randomized controlled trials of ultrasound-guided acupotomy treatment by systematic evaluation and meta-analysis to assess its effectiveness and safety.

Methods

Search strategy

A systematic search was conducted in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), EMBASE, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) from the inception to January 2023. All searches were performed by a biomedical information specialist of the medical library, with an exhaustive set of search terms related to “ultrasound,” AND “acupotomy” OR “small needle knife” AND “trigger finger” OR “tenosynovitis” OR “tendonitis”. Chinese databases were also searched using the above Chinese search terms.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We included studies if they met the following criteria: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) patients were diagnosed with trigger fingers regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, and nationality, and course of disease; (3) the experimental group was treated with ultrasound-guided acupotomy, and the control group was treated with traditional acupotomy, traditional operation or injection of medication.

We excluded the literature if: (1) repeated literature and summary descriptive literature; (2) animal experiments; (3) the language was not English or Chinese; (4) full texts were not available.

Study selection

Two reviewers independently screened the title/abstract of each record by the inclusion criteria. And in cases of uncertainty, we retrieved the full text for further assessment. In the event of disagreement between the two researchers, a third researcher was consulted.

Data extraction

Two researchers extracted data independently using a predetermined extraction table, and disagreements were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third researcher. We extracted the following data: (1) basic information; (2) participant’s baseline characteristics and inclusion/exclusion criteria; (3) details of intervention and control groups; and (4) outcomes (dichotomous data were number of events and total participants per group; continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), and total participants per group).

The primary outcome of this study was the overall clinical effectiveness of therapy. The efficacy evaluation criteria were as follows [13]. Excellent effective, no pain on the affected palm side, no pressure pain, free flexion and extension of fingers, no snapping; Effective, pain on the affected palm side was reduced after treatment, slight pain and mild snapping when moving; Ineffective, pain on the affected palm side was not reduced after treatment, strong pain when moving.

Secondary outcomes included (1) The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score (pain rating scales) [14]; (2) QuinneII classification (trigger finger severity) [15]; (3) incidence of complications; (4) recurrence rate.

Quality assessment

The two authors conducted an independent assessment of the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess the methodological quality of the included studies [16]. The authors, organizations, journal titles, and findings of the included literature were unknown to the two authors. There were seven items in total, and each item was determined to be one of the following: “low risk of bias,” “unclear risk of bias,” and “high risk of bias.” If all seven items were assessed as having a low risk of bias, the study was rated as high quality. If one or more items were assessed as having a high or unclear risk of bias, the study was rated as low quality.

Statistical analysis

Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1 software. For dichotomous data, we calculated the odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); for continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% CI. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic, with values > 50% indicating substantial heterogeneity. And we also considered sensitivity analyses where one study was excluded at a time. The Egger test was used to assess publication bias. Qualitative descriptive analysis was used if the heterogeneity of the included studies was large or the data could not be pooled. Two-sided P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Result

Result of study selection

A total of 200 records were retrieved, and after eliminating duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 80 records were screened. After a final screening, we included 15 studies [13, 17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30] with 988 patients. The screening process is detailed in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study selection method

Full size image

Study characteristics

The main characteristics of the included trials are shown in Table 1. All of the RCTs were published between 2016 and January 2023. A total of 988 participants were aged between 18 and 75 years, and the duration of the diseases was between 3 and 42 months. The details of the quality assessment are shown in Figs. 2 and Fig. 3.

Table 1 The main characteristics of the included trials
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias in the involved studies, assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk-of-bias tool: high risk of bias (+); unclear risk of bias (?); and low risk of bias (−)

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Graph of the risk of bias: percentage of all studies included

Full size image

Primary outcome

Overall clinical effectiveness

Fifteen studies have reported on the overall clinical effectiveness of ultrasound-guided acupotomy treatment. The results of our meta-analysis showed that the overall clinical effectiveness of trigger finger treatment was better in the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group than in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (OR = 4.83; 95% CI 2.49–9.37; I2 = 73.1%; P < 0.001) (Figure 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Meta-analysis on the overall clinical effectiveness of trigger finger treatment in the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group and control group

Full size image

Secondary outcomes

The VAS score

Thirteen studies reviewed the VAS score with trigger finger. The results of the meta-analysis (Fig. 5) showed the VAS score of the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group was significantly lower than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (WMD = − 1; 95% CI − 1.24, − 0.76; I2 = 99%; P < 0.001). It is suggested that the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group can reduce the pain of patients better than the control group.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Meta-analysis on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores with trigger finger treatment in the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group and control group

Full size image

QuinneII grading

Six studies reviewed the QuinneII grading with trigger finger. The results of the meta-analysis showed the QuinneII grading of ultrasound-guided acupotomy group was significantly lower than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (WMD = − 0.84; 95% CI − 1.28, − 0.39; I2 = 99.1%, P < 0.001) (Fig. 6). It is suggested that the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group can reduce the QuinneII grading of patients better than the control group.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Meta-analysis on the QuinneII grading with trigger finger treatment in the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group and control group

Full size image

The incidence of complications

Four studies reviewed the incidence of complications after treatment. The results of the meta-analysis showed the incidence of complications in the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group was significantly lower than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.11, 0.63; I2 = 0%, P = 0.003) (Fig. 7). It is suggested that the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group is safer than the control group.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Meta-analysis on the incidence of complications after trigger finger treatment in the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group and control group

Full size image

The recurrence rate

Two studies reviewed the recurrence rate. The results of the meta-analysis (Fig. 8) showed the recurrence rate of the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group was significantly lower than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (RR = 0.14; 95% CI 0.03, 0.74; I2 = 0%; P = 0.021). It is suggested that the prognosis of the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group is better than the control group.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Meta-analysis on the recurrence rate of trigger finger treatment in the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group and control group

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis

We performed sensitivity analyses using a metaninf command in the STATA software for overall clinical effectiveness, the VAS score and the QuinneII grading. And the results were not significantly different from those of the primary analysis (Fig. 9A–C).

Fig. 9
figure 9

Sensitivity analyses of overall clinical effectiveness (A), VAS score (B) and QuinneII classification (C) in patients with Trigger finger

Full size image

Publication bias

We used the metabias6 command in the STATA software to test the publication bias. The results revealed the existence of publication bias in the meta-analysis of overall clinical effectiveness (Fig. 10A; P >|t|= 0.001) and VAS scores (Fig. 10B; P >|t|= 0.022).

Fig. 10
figure 10

Publication bias test of overall clinical effectiveness (A) and VAS score (B) in patients with Trigger finger

Full size image

Discussion

Our study systematically evaluated the effect and safety of ultrasound-guided acupotomy on trigger finger. The study results showed that ultrasound-guided acupotomy had better effects than the control group. There may be two reasons for this. First, ultrasound-guided acupotomy can accurately determine the location of the percutaneous A1 pulley, directly to the diseased region. Second, ultrasonic real-time dynamic monitoring can avoid iatrogenic injury to important nerves and blood vessels, thereby reducing the incidence of adverse events, reducing swelling and fluid and other complications [31].

And the study also showed that the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group can reduce the pain and the QuinneII grading of patients better than the control group. The pain of the trigger finger before and after treatments was determined with a VAS score [32]. And the QuinneII grading was a clinical grading of finger function from 0 to 4 grades [15]. As ultrasound can show the thickening lesion of A1 pulley clearly and dynamically observe the sliding of the tendon in the sheath, operators can use acupotomy to release A1 pulley accurately and thoroughly, reducing secondary damage and pain, conducive to early finger activity function exercise to avoid or reduce the adhesion recurred again.

In addition, the study showed that the incidence of complications and recurrence rate in the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group was significantly lower than the control group, which suggested that the ultrasound-guided acupotomy group was safer than the control group. Because under the guidance of ultrasound visualization, the operators could see the blood vessels and nerves clearly and avoid damaging them. Yang et al. showed that ultrasound-guided acupotomy release was safer than the needle, and no vascular nerve injury or A2 pulley injury occurred. It was confirmed that ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release by acupotomy is a safe and effective method [33].

However, this study may have the following limitations. First, the small number and the low quality of the studies included in this review may have affected our results. Second, the control group was treated with acupuncture, surgery, and corticosteroid injections, which may have been biased. And only a few articles have studied adverse reactions, so the safety of ultrasound-guided acupotomy needs to be further observed.

As a new therapeutic technique, it is still being explored, and there are many aspects that need to be further improved. According to the data and results of this study, we find that sample size should be increased in future studies, the rigor of trial design should be improved, and multi-center RCT should be used to provide more objective clinical evidence.

Conclusion

Our systematic review and meta-analysis can prove the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound-guided acupotomy in the treatment of trigger finger, but this still needs to be verified by a clinical standard large sample test.

Availability of data and materials

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Giugale JM, Fowler JR. Trigger finger: adult and pediatric treatment strategies. Orthop Clin N Am. 2015;46:561–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bastian DA, Kusnezov N, Dunn JC, Mitchell JS, Pirela-Cruz M. Subclinical partial attritional rupture of the flexor digitorum profundus as an etiology of atraumatic trigger finger. Case Rep Orthop. 2017;2017:8769369.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Matthews A, Smith K, Read L, Nicholas J, Schmidt E. Trigger finger: an overview of the treatment options. Jaapa. 2019;32:17–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Qian XZ, Xu QQ. A review on the treatment of flexor tendon stenosis tenosynovitis by integrated Traditional Chinese and Western medicine. Henan Tradit Chin Med. 2019;39:1126–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kwon CY, Yoon SH, Lee B. Clinical effectiveness and safety of acupotomy: an overview of systematic reviews. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2019;36:142–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ouyang J, Li YK, Yue YB. The research for damage of local anatomical structure of the finger palm side caused by acupotmy operation methods for trigger finger. Chin J Rehabil Med. 2010;256:523–6.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pan M, Yang H, Xie TX, et al. Value of ultrasound-guided acupotomy treatment for trigger finger. Chin J Ultrasound Med. 2018;372–5.

  8. Qiu Z, Jia Y, Shen Y, et al. Acupotomy by an ultrasound-guided technique: a protocol for a systematic review. Medicine. 2019;98:e17398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Han Q, Shi G, Wang X. Ultrasound-guided needle-knife treatment on chronic neck pain: a long-term follow-up study. Geriatr Health Care. 2018;24:487–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Liu C, Zhu Q, Chang J, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus casei and Enterococcus faecalis on growth performance, immune function and gut microbiota of suckling piglets. Arch Anim Nutr. 2017;71:120–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen PXD, Guo R, et al. Clinical observation on treating stenosing tenosynovitis by ultrasound-guided acupotomy. Clin J Chin Med. 2017;9:41–2.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pan M, Sheng S, Fan Z, et al. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous release of A1 pulley by using a needle knife: a prospective study of 41 cases. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:267.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Bai D, Zhang Y. The effectiveness of musculoskeletal ultrasound guided small needle knife in the treatment of flexor tendon stenosing tenosynovitis and its effect on patients. Syst Med. 2020;5:81–3.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sung YT, Wu JS. The visual analogue scale for rating, ranking and paired-comparison (VAS-RRP): a new technique for psychological measurement. Behav Res Methods. 2018;50:1694–715.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Quinnell RC. Conservative management of trigger finger. Practitioner. 1980;224:187–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Fan TB, Wang C. Treatment of flexor tendon by ultrasound combined with small acupotomy analysis of therapeutic effect of stenotic tenosynovitis. Zhejiang J Traum Surg. 2021;871–2.

  18. Guo ZN, Qian SQ, Huang ZM, He JA, Chen JY. Precise treatment of flexor tendon stenosis with small needle scalpel guided by visualization of ultrasound clinical observation of tenosynovitis. China Prac Med. 2021;16:77–9.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Huang SW, Sun LL, Li XJ, Luo DM. Clinical observation on the treatment of flexor tendon tenosynovitis with small needle knife guided by ultrasound. A summary of the latest medical information in the world. 2020;20:197–9

  20. Qu L. Clinical observation of ultrasound-guided acupotomy in the treatment of flexor tendon tenosynovitis. Everyone Healthy. 2019;23:72.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shui YH, Zhang L, Li PY, Zhu YJ, Lei GL. Clinical study on ultrasound-guided small needle-knife in adult with stenosing tenosynovitis of flexor digitorum. J Clin Ultrasound in Med. 2019;21:940–3.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Song GP, Ge W. Clinical comparative study of ultrasound-guided minimally invasive surgery with small needle knife and traditional surgery in the treatment of stenosing tenosynovitis of flexor tendon of thumb. Health Nutr China. 2020;8:132–3.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wang GH, Cui ZY, Pan M. Observation on treating flexor tendon stenosis tenosynovitis by ultrasound-guided small needle knife. Clin J Chin Med. 2019;11:87–90.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wang YL, Lin SD. Clinical analysis of ultrasound-guided drug infusion in tendon sheath combined with acupotomy in the treatment of stenosing tendonitis. Clin Med Eng. 2021;28:731–2.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Weng KD, Zhang XG, Gea S. Clnical study on treating adult trigger finger with smail needle knife under the guidance of ultrasound. J Med Res. 2016;45:111–4.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Xu C, Wang ZW, Bea Z. Effect of ultrasound-guided acupotomy on adult flexor tendon stenotenosynovitis. Hebei Med J. 2020;42:2927–30.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yang B, Zhong M, Lu MP, Zeng M, Zhang B. Clinical application of ultrasound-guided small needle scalpel percutaneous puncture to release snap fingers. Med Equip. 2019;32:67–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang HZ. Treatment of tenosynovitis of flexor tendon by musculoskeletal ultrasound-guided small needle knife. Med Minist Int. 2021;30:1173–5.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang L, Tang GP. Clinical study of musculoskeletal ultrasound-guided acupotomy in the treatment of flexor muscle stricture tenosynovitis. World Latest Med Inf. 2020;20:99–100.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang WB, Yao DW, Wu WX. Ultrasound-guided needle-knife for trigger finger. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2019;39:867–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang CY, Li CX. Evaluation value of musculoskeletal ultrasound in the treatment of flexor tenoshetitis of thumb and palmetto finger with small needle knife. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Indonesia. 2019;20:299–300.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kosiyatrakul A, Songchou K, Luenam S. Reduction in pain from corticosteroid injection for the treatment of trigger finger with subcutaneous single-injection digital block: a randomized controlled trial. Musculoskelet Surg. 2021;105:309–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yang J, Ma B, Zhong H, Zhang Y, Zhu J, Ni Y. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous A1 pulley release by acupotomy (needle-knife): a cadaveric study of safety and efficacy. J Pain Res. 2022;15:413–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study did not receive any funding in any form.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yong-shan Liang and Ling-yan Chen contributed equally to this work as Co-first author.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Medical School of Acupuncture, Moxibustion and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong, China

    Yong-shan Liang & Yun-xiang Xu

  2. Department of Rehabilitation, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China

    Yong-shan Liang, Ling-yan Chen, Chun-xiao Du & Lun-hui Yin

  3. Guangdong Lingnan Institute of Technology, Guangzhou, 510640, Guangdong, China

    Yao-yun Cui

Authors
  1. Yong-shan Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ling-yan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yao-yun Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chun-xiao Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yun-xiang Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lun-hui Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YL, LC designed and performed research. YC, CD analyzed data. YX, LY contributed to data interpretation and wrote the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yun-xiang Xu or Lun-hui Yin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liang, Ys., Chen, Ly., Cui, Yy. et al. Ultrasound-guided acupotomy for trigger finger: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 18, 678 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04127-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04127-3

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X