Complications of open trigger finger release.
Ryan Will, John Lubahn
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20189319/Actively Recruiting
Led by Washington University School of Medicine · Updated on 2026-04-08
200
Participants Needed
2
Research Sites
52 weeks
Total Duration
This trial investigates adults with trigger finger, a condition where a finger locks due to swelling around the tendons. It compares two types of skin cuts used in surgery to release the finger pulley a longitudinal incision along the finger and a transverse incision across the palm crease. The study aims to find which incision leads to better hand function, less pain, improved scar healing, and quicker return to normal activities. Participants will undergo surgery to release the pulley using one of the two incision types assigned randomly. Both surgeries follow the same techniques for the release and post-operative care. The trial will compare hand function about 6 weeks after surgery using the PROMIS Upper Extremity score. Secondary measures include pain levels, scar appearance, time to return to work, finger movement without pain, and complication rates. During the study, participants complete questionnaires about hand function and pain before and after surgery. Pain is recorded daily for the first three days and at follow-ups around 2, 6, and 12 weeks. Scars are assessed and photographed at these visits. Researchers will monitor complications and collect detailed data on recovery. The total follow-up lasts about 12 weeks after surgery to evaluate healing and satisfaction.
CONDITIONS
Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Longitudinal vs. Transverse A1 Pulley Release
N
Nisha N Kale, MD
J
Jason Strezlow, MD
Explore thousands of other clinical trials that might be a better match.
Sign up to get personalized trial recommendations delivered to your inbox.
Already have an account? Log in here
Washington University School of Medicine
Lead Sponsor
University of Chicago
Collaborating Sponsor
This table compares participation in this trial with other options available for this condition. The information is drawn from published research and the trial’s study details and is provided for educational purposes only.
| Factors | Longitudinal Incision | Transverse Incision |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Open surgical release of the first annular (A1) pulley using a longitudinal (vertical) incision along the length of the finger to treat trigger finger. | Open surgical release of the first annular (A1) pulley using a transverse (horizontal) incision across the flexor crease of the finger to treat trigger finger. |
| Role in the trial | Randomized intervention arm testing longitudinal incision technique for surgical release. | Randomized intervention arm testing transverse incision technique for surgical release. |
| Primary use | Surgical treatment to relieve finger locking and pain by releasing the A1 pulley in trigger finger. | Surgical treatment to relieve symptoms of trigger finger by releasing the A1 pulley with a horizontal incision. |
| How it is performed | The surgeon makes a longitudinal incision in the skin over the first annular pulley, then releases the pulley using standard open technique. Post-operative care is the same for all participants. | The surgeon makes a transverse incision across the flexor crease over the A1 pulley, then performs open release of the pulley. Post-operative protocol is standardized across participants. |
| Evidence status | Evidence from randomized trials and case series supports open A1 pulley release as an effective surgical treatment for trigger finger, but data comparing specific incision types are limited. | Randomized and observational data confirm overall effectiveness of open A1 pulley release, with incision orientation not strongly favoring one method for clinical outcomes based on current evidence. |
| Important risks | Possible risks include infection, delayed wound healing, scar sensitivity, digital nerve or vessel injury, painful or sensitive scars, bowstringing, flexor tendon injury, and recurrence of triggering. Overall complication rate is low in both techniques. | Risks mirror those of longitudinal incision: infection, poor wound healing, painful or hypertrophic scarring, digital nerve or vessel injury, tendon bowstringing, or recurrence. Scar characteristics may differ slightly by incision type. |
| Important limitations | Longitudinal incisions may result in more visible scarring on the finger and potentially higher scar sensitivity, but major differences in function or pain compared to transverse have not been clearly shown. Evidence on long-term function and cosmesis is still limited. | Transverse incisions may have less prominent scars but can sometimes cross skin creases or risk hypertrophic scarring. Cosmetic differences may not affect clinical outcome but are a consideration. |
Disclaimer: This comparison is created with the help of artificial intelligence(AI) and may contain errors or missing information. It is not medical advice and does not mean one option is better or safer than another. Clinical trials are still being studied, and joining a trial is your choice. Please consult your healthcare professional before making any decisions.
You may qualify if you...
You will not qualify if you...
Duration - 2 to 4 weeks
Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial.
1 visit (in-person)
Duration - Up to 1 week
Participants undergo standard open A1 pulley release surgery using either a longitudinal or transverse incision based on randomization, followed by standardized post-operative care.
Surgery visit plus daily pain assessments on days 1 to 3
Duration - Approximately 12 weeks
Participants are monitored for recovery including function, pain, scar healing, and complications through scheduled assessments.
In-person or virtual visits at approximately 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Masking
NONE
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Model
PARALLEL
Primary Purpose
TREATMENT
Number of Arms
2
Have more questions? Get in touch with our team for quick support
Ryan Will, John Lubahn
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20189319/Cyriac Peters-Veluthamaningal, Daniëlle A W M van der Windt, Jan C Winters...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19160256/Anne-Carolin Döring, Sjoerd P F T Nota, Michiel G J S Hageman...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24799143/André S Nimigan, Douglas C Ross, Bing Siang Gan
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16357547/Rehne L Hansen, Morten Søndergaard, Jeppe Lange
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28341069/R Gorsche, J P Wiley, R Renger...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9636936/Oliver Kloeters, Dietmar J O Ulrich, Gijs Bloemsma...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26926477/Hanneke Bruijnzeel, Valentin Neuhaus, Sigrid Fostvedt...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22763058/Lieneke J Draaijers, Fenike R H Tempelman, Yvonne A M Botman...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15253184/Joseph A Ricci, Nirav N Parekh, Naman S Desai
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26078548/Washington University School of Medicine
Lead Sponsor
University of Chicago
Collaborating Sponsor