Evidence Hub

De Quervain’s Tenosynovitis Release With Excision of the First Dorsal Compartment: Novel Surgical Technique and a Case Series

Adam Margalit, Jared Bookman, Michael Aversano, Michael S. Guss, Omri Ayalon, Nader Paksima

Techniques in Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery, 2024

147 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Incision of the dorsal side of the tendon sheath in release of De Quervain’s tenosynovitis has traditionally been advocated to prevent the risk of volar tendon subluxation. We describe a novel technique of complete excision, rather than simple incision, of the first dorsal compartment tendon sheath. Over a 10-year period, 147 patients (154 wrists) underwent first dorsal compartment release using this technique of complete excision of the sheath. No postoperative immobilization is used. Patients were followed for a mean of 7.0 months. Records were assessed for any complications including reoperation, tendon subluxation, recurrence, wound complications, scar tenderness, and superficial radial sensory nerve paresthesias. There were no cases of recurrence, reoperation, or tendon subluxation after release with this technique. Postoperatively, 7 (4.5%) patients had scar tenderness and 5 (3.2%) of these patients also had superficial radial sensory nerve parasthesias, which all resolved at the time of final follow-up. Mean range of motion was 73±11 degrees of flexion and 69±10 degrees of extension. In contrast to simple incision, we propose that this technique provides a more complete release of the compartment without risk of symptomatic subluxation or bowstringing and provides a complete release of a separate extensor pollicis brevis subsheath or any concomitant retinacular cysts associated with the tendonitis. There is an immediate removal of the symptomatic swelling and visible,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 147 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free