When it comes to tenosynovitis, everyone thinks of closure therapy. I have found in my clinical work that there are two very different attitudes toward closure therapy among my patients. One category is extremely dependent on the closure treatment, as a special method to treat tendovaginitis. Sometimes in the clinic encounter such a patient friends, once they come to say: doctor, I am tendovaginitis, give me a shot of closure, the last tube for six months, this shot is estimated to be a half a year. These patients often have more than two closed treatment history. Another category is firmly reject the closed, a closed is straight shaking his head, completely unacceptable. So closed in the end there is no role, should not do it? First of all, we need to understand what exactly is closed treatment. Simply put, it is a small amount of local anesthetic and hormonal drugs mixed together injected in the pain area to achieve the purpose of analgesia and anti-inflammatory. Patients who say it works do so because they experience pain and get relief or even no pain at all after closure therapy. One of my colleagues (also a hand surgeon) had a severe pain at the metacarpophalangeal joint of his thumb, apparently an acute attack of tenosynovitis, but he still had a day of surgery to do, so he had no choice but to ask me to give him closure, and now it has been almost 5 years and has never recurred. So this type of patient is very confident in the effectiveness of the closure. But the problem is that the role of closure is mainly analgesic and anti-inflammatory, and will not play a role in promoting the healing and repair of the tissue. On the contrary, because of the presence of hormones, but is to make the tendon tissue (such as flexor tendons) increased brittle, long-term multiple applications will increase the risk of spontaneous rupture of the tendon. At the same time, it is not uncommon for closure solutions to be mistakenly injected into blood vessels resulting in finger necrosis. Patients who refuse to close the information often obtained indirectly from friends’ channels, these patients often say: “They say, the risk of closure can be big, not good.” But this ‘they’, neither doctors, nor experts, and sometimes even the patients themselves can not remember who said it. Therefore, I think both go undesirable, the existence of a treatment means must have its role and rationality. Neither blindly expand the efficacy nor categorically reject it, both of which are detrimental to the treatment of the disease. Closed treatment, need to grasp the indications, for pain for a long time can not be relieved, affecting the life of patients who have not undergone similar treatment, is completely possible to use closed treatment; but if after one or two closed treatment is still recurrent, the effect of a short period of time can not be sustained, it is not recommended to continue closed treatment.