Comparison of Different Dosages and Volumes of Triamcinolone in the Treatment of Stenosing Tenosynovitis: A Prospective, Blinded, Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stenosing tenosynovitis is a condition due to a size mismatch between the flexor tendons and the first annular pulley. Corticosteroid injection is the mainstay treatment. The purpose of this study is to compare different dosages and volumes of triamcinolone in the treatment of primary stenosing tenosynovitis. METHODS: Patients with primary Quinnell grades 1 or 2 stenosing tenosynovitis were recruited in this prospective, blinded, randomized trial. Patients were randomized into 1 of 2 groups. Group A received 0.25 mL of triamcinolone 40 mg/mL, mixed with 0.25 mL of 1% lidocaine with epinephrine (10 mg of triamcinolone, 0.5 mL in total volume). Group B received 0.5 mL of triamcinolone 40 mg/mL, mixed with 0.5 mL of 1% lidocaine with epinephrine (20 mg of triamcinolone, 1 mL in total volume). Patients were assessed by a blinded hand therapist at 2 and 4 weeks, and by a blinded hand surgeon at 6 weeks. The primary outcome was complete symptom resolution at 6 weeks. Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses were performed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one patients were recruited from 2009 to 2018. Eighty-two and 77 patients had complete data in group A and B, respectively. There was no difference in success rates in complete symptom resolution at 6 weeks between group A (59.8%) and group B (62.3%). The mean visual analogue pain scores on injection were 4.31 ± 2.11 for group A and 4.30 ± 2.09 for group B. CONCLUSIONS: Triamcinolone 10 mg was as effective as 20 mg in the resolution of symptoms of Quinnell grade 1 or 2 stenosing tenosynovitis at 6 weeks.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".