Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Longitudinal analysis of rotator cuff repair: joint kinematics and clinical outcomes.

JSES international·2026

Same author

Clinical and engagement efficacy of a virtual musculoskeletal integrated practice unit in health system employees: aggregate and comparative results from two employers.

Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences·2025

Same author

Young age, female sex, smoking, and worse area deprivation index associated with prolonged postoperative opioid use after rotator cuff repair.

Shoulder & elbow·2025

Same author

Arthroscopic Repair of Batter's Shoulder.

Video journal of sports medicine·2025

Same author

The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) has Little Utility Before Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty.

The Journal of arthroplasty·2025

Same author

Preoperative depression screening using PHQ-2 is associated with worse outcomes after ACL reconstruction.

Journal of orthopaedics·2025

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 19, 2026

Metacarpal Small Incision for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Metacarpal Small Incision for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Published on: April 5, 2024

Percutaneous Trigger Finger Release: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Stephanie M Gancarczyk¹, Eugene S Jang, Eric P Swart

¹From the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.

The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

|June 18, 2016

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Performing percutaneous trigger finger release (TFR) in the office is more cost-effective than open TFR. This approach offers significant future cost savings for trigger finger treatment.

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Ultrasound-Guided Needle Release Combined with Corticosteroid Injection for the Treatment of Supinator Syndrome

Author Spotlight: Ultrasound-Guided Needle Release Combined with Corticosteroid Injection for the Treatment of Supinator Syndrome

Published on: May 26, 2023

Author Spotlight: Fu's Subcutaneous Needling for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain

Author Spotlight: Fu's Subcutaneous Needling for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain

Published on: March 24, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 19, 2026

Metacarpal Small Incision for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Metacarpal Small Incision for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Published on: April 5, 2024

Author Spotlight: Ultrasound-Guided Needle Release Combined with Corticosteroid Injection for the Treatment of Supinator Syndrome

Author Spotlight: Ultrasound-Guided Needle Release Combined with Corticosteroid Injection for the Treatment of Supinator Syndrome

Published on: May 26, 2023

Author Spotlight: Fu's Subcutaneous Needling for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain

Author Spotlight: Fu's Subcutaneous Needling for Knee Osteoarthritis Pain

Published on: March 24, 2023

Area of Science:

Hand surgery
Orthopedic surgery
Health economics

Background:

Percutaneous trigger finger release (TFR) in an office setting is increasingly common.
This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different TFR treatment strategies.

Purpose of the Study:

To compare the total costs of in-hospital open TFR, ambulatory surgical center (ASC) open TFR, and in-office percutaneous TFR.
To identify the most cost-effective approach for trigger finger release from a payer perspective.

Main Methods:

An expected-value decision-analysis model was utilized.
Model parameters were derived from existing literature and validated through sensitivity analysis.

Main Results:

The most cost-effective strategy was percutaneous TFR in the office, potentially followed by ASC open TFR revision ($603).
Initial open TFR in an ASC was approximately 7% more expensive.
In-hospital open TFR was the least cost-effective, nearly doubling the cost of primary percutaneous TFR.

Conclusions:

Initial percutaneous TFR is more cost-effective than open TFR.
Significant cost-saving opportunities exist, as only 5% of TFRs are currently performed in-office.