Steroid Injections in the Management of Trigger Fingers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The most commonly used primary treatment for trigger fingers is corticosteroid injection in the flexor tendon sheath, followed by surgical release if unsuccessful. This study examines the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of patients with trigger fingers presenting to a large Canadian tertiary referral center. The treatment success and side-effect profile of steroid injection therapy and surgical release were examined in the context of comorbid illness, specifically, diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Retrospective review of all patients with trigger finger who were seen by the senior authors between January 1999 and June 2004. RESULTS: In the study period, 118 trigger digits were treated. This study included 92 nondiabetic, 21 type 2 diabetic, and five type 1 diabetic trigger fingers. Of the 89 digits that received at least one steroid injection, 46 (52%) resolved completely and 42 (47%) were improved. Nondiabetic digits were treated successfully in 40 out of 70 digits (57%) with steroid injection therapy. Diabetic patients had a success rate of 6 of 19 (32%) with steroid injections, which is significantly lower than nondiabetics (P = 0.04). All type 1 diabetics (n = 5) required surgical treatment. Surgical treatment was successful in 71 of 72 (99%) digits. No side effects of steroid injection were noted, and short-term postoperative side effects were noted in 26 of 72 surgical patients (36%). No statistically significant differences were found in surgical complication rates in diabetics vs. nondiabetics or type 1 diabetics vs. type 2 diabetics. CONCLUSIONS: Steroid injection therapy should be the first-line treatment of trigger fingers in nondiabetic patients. In diabetics, the success rate of steroid injection is significantly lower. Injection therapy for type 1 diabetics was ineffective in this study. Surgical release of the first annular (A1) pulley is most effective overall in diabetics and nondiabetics alike, with no higher rates of surgical complications in diabetics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".