CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07516652Updated Apr 8, 2026

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Longitudinal vs. Transverse A1 Pulley Release

An interventional study of Open A1 Pulley Release in Trigger Finger and Stenosing Tenosynovitis, sponsored by Washington University School of Medicine. Recruiting at 2 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-08.

Sponsored by Washington University School of Medicine · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
200
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to compare two different skin incisions used in surgery to treat trigger finger in adult patients. Trigger finger occurs when a finger gets stuck or locks because of swelling of the sheath around the tendons the help move the fingers. The main questions it aims to answer are (1) Does the type of skin cut affect how well the hand works 6 weeks after surgery? (2) Does the type of skin cut affect pain levels, scar healing, and how quickly people return to their normal activities? Orthopaedic surgeons will compare a straight incision along the finger (longitudinal incision) to a incision across the crease in the palm (transverse incision) to see if one type of incision results in better recovery, less pain, a better scar, and higher patient satisfaction with the procedure. Participants who have trigger finger and are indicated for surgery will have surgery to release the pulley in their finger using one of the two types of incisions (assigned by chance). Participants will fill out questionnaires about their hand function and pain before surgery and at follow-up visits. Participants will have their scar checked and rated at about 2, 6, and 12 weeks after surgery, and report on their pain for the first few days after surgery and when they can return to work and move their finger without pain.

Read the detailed description

This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing clinical and patient-reported outcomes between longitudinal and transverse incisions for open A1 pulley release in the treatment of idiopathic trigger finger (stenosing tenosynovitis of the fingers, excluding the thumb). Stenosing tenosynovitis of the flexor tendon, commonly known as trigger finger, is a frequent hand condition with a lifetime incidence of approximately 2.6%. It results from inflammation and a size mismatch between the flexor tendon and the first annular (A1) pulley, leading to painful catching, clicking, or locking during finger flexion and extension. When conservative measures such as splinting and corticosteroid injections fail, surgical release of the A1 pulley is indicated. Although A1 pulley release is one of the most commonly performed hand procedures and is generally considered safe and effective, reported complication rates range from 6% to 36% and include wound-healing issues, persistent or recurrent triggering, infection, wound dehiscence, and painful scar formation. Patient dissatisfaction is most often related to scar tenderness, irritation, and cosmetic concerns that can limit tendon gliding and hand function. Two incision techniques are commonly used: longitudinal (along the axis of the finger) and transverse/oblique (within the distal palmar crease). Proponents of the longitudinal incision emphasize improved visualization and extensibility, while proponents of the transverse incision highlight superior cosmesis and faster healing. Despite the frequency of this procedure, high-quality evidence comparing these approaches remains limited. This trial was designed to address this knowledge gap in a setting of clinical equipoise, where surgeons at the participating centers routinely use both techniques. The primary objective is to compare post-operative upper-extremity function, as measured by the PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE) score at approximately 6 weeks, between the longitudinal and transverse incision groups. Secondary objectives include comparing post-operative pain (Numeric Pain Scale), time to return to work, time to pain-free finger extension (tabletop test), additional PROMIS domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression), scar outcomes using validated scales (POSAS, SCAR-Q, and 0-10 global satisfaction), and complication rates (wound dehiscence, infection, return to OR, and revision surgery). This investigator-initiated, multicenter, 1:1 randomized controlled trial will enroll approximately 200 participants across participating sites, with Washington University School of Medicine/Barnes-Jewish Hospital system serving as the lead site and the University of Chicago as a second site. Block randomization, stratified by site, will be performed immediately after consent using a secure web-based randomization system. Eligible participants are adults ≥18 years old with a diagnosis of trigger finger (fingers only) who provide written informed consent; exclusion criteria include revision surgery, prior surgery on the affected finger, or refusal of consent. The intervention consists of standard open A1 pulley release performed through either a longitudinal incision or a transverse incision placed in the distal palmar crease, with all other aspects of surgical technique and post-operative care standardized. Intra-operative data collected will include the need for FDS excision and any incision extension. The primary outcome is the PROMIS Upper Extremity score at \~6 weeks post-operatively. Secondary outcomes include Numeric Pain Scale scores (days 1-3, \~2 weeks, \~6 weeks, and \~12 weeks), days to return to work, days to pain-free finger extension (tabletop test), PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression scores, scar metrics (POSAS, SCAR-Q, and 0-10 global satisfaction) at \~2, \~6, and \~12 weeks, and complication rates. Study procedures include pre-operative collection of demographics, medical history (including diabetes, depression/anxiety, and chronic opioid use), trigger finger details, and baseline PROMIS scores. Post-operatively, pain reports will be collected on days 1-3, with in-person or virtual assessments at \~2 weeks, \~6 weeks (primary endpoint), and \~12 weeks; scar photographs will be obtained during in-person visits. All data will be entered into a Washington University REDCap instance. Continuous outcomes will be compared using t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, while categorical outcomes will use chi-square or Fisher's exact tests; mixed-effects models will account for repeated measures and site effects. The sample size was calculated to detect a 4-point difference in PROMIS UE score (minimal clinically important difference) with 80% power and α=0.05, accounting for the reported standard deviation. The results of this trial will provide evidence-based guidance on optimal incision selection to improve functional recovery, reduce pain, optimize scar healing, and enhance patient satisfaction after A1 pulley release.

02

Conditions studied

  • Trigger Finger
  • Stenosing Tenosynovitis

Keywords

  • trigger finger
  • stenosing tenosynovitis
  • A1 pulley release
  • longitudinal incision
  • hand surgery
  • randomized controlled trial
  • scar outcomes
  • PROMIS
  • patient-reported outcomes
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years)
  • Diagnosed with trigger finger (stenosing tenosynovitis) of a finger (excluding the thumb)
  • Written informed consent obtained

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Revision surgery
  • Previous surgery on the affected finger
  • Patients refusing consent
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
200 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Longitudinal Incision

    Participants randomized to this arm will undergo standard open A1 pulley release for trigger finger using a longitudinal incision along the axis of the finger.

    Procedure: Open A1 Pulley Release

  • Experimental
    Transverse Incision

    Participants randomized to this arm will undergo standard open A1 pulley release for trigger finger using a transverse incision placed in the distal palmar crease.

    Procedure: Open A1 Pulley Release

Interventions

  • ProcedureOpen A1 Pulley Release

    Surgical release of the first annular (A1) pulley to treat stenosing tenosynovitis (trigger finger). Participants receive either a longitudinal or transverse incision based on their randomized arm assignment. All other aspects of surgical technique and post-operative care are standardized.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. PROMIS Upper Extremity Score

    Patient-reported upper extremity function measured by the PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE) scale (range: 0-100, where higher scores indicate better upper extremity function).

    Time frame: Approximately 6 weeks post-operatively

Secondary outcomes

  1. Numeric Pain Scale (NPS)

    Self-reported pain intensity measured by the Numeric Pain Scale (range: 0-10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = worst possible pain; higher scores indicate worse pain).

    Time frame: Days 1-3, approximately 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-operatively

  2. Days to Return to Work

    Number of days from surgery until the patient returns to work (or usual activities if retired/unemployed).

    Time frame: Up to 12 weeks post-operatively

  3. Time to Pain-Free Finger Extension (Tabletop Test)

    Number of days from surgery until the patient achieves pain-free finger extension, assessed by the tabletop test. This is a binary test (yes/no) which assesses if the patient can lay their hand flat on a tabletop without any residual triggering.

    Time frame: Up to 12 weeks post-operatively

  4. PROMIS Physical Function Score

    Patient-reported physical function measured by the PROMIS Physical Function scale (range: 0-100, where higher scores indicate better physical function).

    Time frame: Approximately 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-operatively

  5. PROMIS Pain Interference Score

    Patient-reported pain interference measured by the PROMIS Pain Interference scale (range: 0-100, where higher scores indicate greater pain interference / worse outcome).

    Time frame: Approximately 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-operatively

  6. PROMIS Depression Score

    Patient-reported depressive symptoms measured by the PROMIS Depression scale (range: 0-100, where higher scores indicate more depressive symptoms / worse outcome).

    Time frame: Approximately 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-operatively

  7. Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)

    Scar quality assessed by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS; total score range 6-60 per scale, where higher scores indicate worse scar appearance and symptoms).

    Time frame: Approximately 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-operatively

  8. SCAR-Q Score

    Patient-reported scar outcome measured by the SCAR-Q (higher scores indicate better scar outcome).

    Time frame: Approximately 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-operatively

  9. Global Satisfaction with Scar

    Patient global satisfaction with scar appearance and symptoms measured on a numeric rating scale (range: 0-10, where 0 indicates completely dissatisfied and 10 indicates completely satisfied; higher scores indicate better outcome).

    Time frame: Approximately 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-operatively

  10. Complication Rate

    Rate of post-operative complications including wound dehiscence, infection, return to the operating room, and need for revision surgery (reported as the proportion of patients experiencing each event).

    Time frame: Up to 12 weeks post-operatively

06

Study locations

2 of 2 sites recruiting
  • The University of Chicago Medicine
    Chicago, Illinois 60537, United States
    Recruiting
  • Washington University and Barnes-Jewish Orthopedic Center
    St Louis, Missouri 63110, United States
    • Alli Rittenhouse · Contact · allir@wustl.edu · (314) 747-2652
    • Matthew Berning · Contact · berning@wustl.edu · (314) 514-3500
    • Jason Strelzow, MD · Principal investigator
    • Ryan Calfee, MD · Sub investigator
    • Nisha N Kale, MD · Sub investigator
    Recruiting
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Ziolkowski NI, Pusic AL, Fish JS, Mundy LR, Wong She R, Forrest CR, Hollenbeck S, Arriagada C, Calcagno M, Greenhalgh D, Klassen AF. Psychometric Findings for the SCAR-Q Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Based on 731 Children and Adults with Surgical, Traumatic, and Burn Scars from Four Countries. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Sep;146(3):331e-338e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007078. PubMed 32842115 ↗
  • Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW, van Zuijlen PP. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Jun;113(7):1960-5; discussion 1966-7. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000122207.28773.56. PubMed 15253184 ↗
  • Doring AC, Nota SP, Hageman MG, Ring DC. Measurement of upper extremity disability using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. J Hand Surg Am. 2014 Jun;39(6):1160-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.03.013. Epub 2014 May 3. PubMed 24799143 ↗
  • Fiorini HJ, Tamaoki MJ, Lenza M, Gomes Dos Santos JB, Faloppa F, Belloti JC. Surgery for trigger finger. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 20;2(2):CD009860. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009860.pub2. PubMed 29460276 ↗
  • Peters-Veluthamaningal C, van der Windt DA, Winters JC, Meyboom-de Jong B. Corticosteroid injection for trigger finger in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;2009(1):CD005617. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005617.pub2. PubMed 19160256 ↗
  • Kloeters O, Ulrich DJ, Bloemsma G, van Houdt CI. Comparison of three different incision techniques in A1 pulley release on scar tissue formation and postoperative rehabilitation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 May;136(5):731-7. doi: 10.1007/s00402-016-2430-z. Epub 2016 Feb 29. PubMed 26926477 ↗
  • Kato N, Yoshizawa T, Sakai H. Useful MRI assessment for bowstringing of the flexor tendon after trigger finger release. J Orthop Sci. 2014 Jan;19(1):186-9. doi: 10.1007/s00776-012-0264-2. Epub 2012 Jun 29. No abstract available. PubMed 22744012 ↗
  • Ricci JA, Parekh NN, Desai NS. Release of the A1 Pulley for Trigger Finger Complicated by Flexor Tenosynovitis. J Hand Microsurg. 2015 Jun;7(1):220-3. doi: 10.1007/s12593-015-0171-9. Epub 2015 Jan 13. No abstract available. PubMed 26078548 ↗
  • Unglaub F, Cakmak F, Wolf MB, Hahn P. Letter regarding "Adverse events of open A1 pulley release for idiopathic trigger finger". J Hand Surg Am. 2012 Nov;37(11):2428-9; author reply 2429. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.08.038. No abstract available. PubMed 23101540 ↗
  • Bruijnzeel H, Neuhaus V, Fostvedt S, Jupiter JB, Mudgal CS, Ring DC. Adverse events of open A1 pulley release for idiopathic trigger finger. J Hand Surg Am. 2012 Aug;37(8):1650-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.05.014. Epub 2012 Jul 3. PubMed 22763058 ↗
  • Will R, Lubahn J. Complications of open trigger finger release. J Hand Surg Am. 2010 Apr;35(4):594-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2009.12.040. Epub 2010 Feb 26. PubMed 20189319 ↗
  • Nimigan AS, Ross DC, Gan BS. Steroid injections in the management of trigger fingers. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Jan;85(1):36-43. doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000184236.81774.b5. PubMed 16357547 ↗
  • Hansen RL, Sondergaard M, Lange J. Open Surgery Versus Ultrasound-Guided Corticosteroid Injection for Trigger Finger: A Randomized Controlled Trial With 1-Year Follow-up. J Hand Surg Am. 2017 May;42(5):359-366. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.02.011. Epub 2017 Mar 22. PubMed 28341069 ↗
  • Gil JA, Hresko AM, Weiss AC. Current Concepts in the Management of Trigger Finger in Adults. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020 Aug 1;28(15):e642-e650. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00614. PubMed 32732655 ↗
  • Gorsche R, Wiley JP, Renger R, Brant R, Gemer TY, Sasyniuk TM. Prevalence and incidence of stenosing flexor tenosynovitis (trigger finger) in a meat-packing plant. J Occup Environ Med. 1998 Jun;40(6):556-60. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199806000-00008. PubMed 9636936 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Mar 31, 2026
  • Informed consent form · Mar 31, 2026

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — There are no plans to share individual participant data (IPD) with other researchers. This is an investigator-initiated multicenter randomized trial; data will remain with the study team and will only be used for analysis and publication of aggregate study results.

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07516652
Lead sponsor
Washington University School of Medicine
Collaborators
University of Chicago
Responsible party
Jason Strelzow (Jason Strelzow, MD Associate Professor, Orthopaedic Surgery Division of Hand and Microsurgery Vice Chair of Faculty Affairs, Washington University School of Medicine) — Principal investigator
First posted
Apr 8, 2026
Start date
Apr 1, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Apr 1, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Mar 30, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 8, 2026

Study contacts

Nisha N Kale, MD
Contact
kale.n@wustl.edu
314-906-2072
Jason Strezlow, MD
Contact
strelzow@wustl.edu
(314) 514-3500
Jason Strelzow, MD
principal investigator · Associate Professor, Orthopaedic Surgery Division of Hand and Microsurgery, Washington University in St Louis
Ryan Calfee, MD
study chair · Professor, Orthopaedic Surgery Division of Hand and Microsurgery Chief, Hand and Microsurgery Service Medical Director, Washington University and Barnes-Jewish Orthopedic Center
Nisha N Kale, MD
study director · Washington University in St. Louis Department of Orthopaedic Surgery

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion