腕管释放与完全清醒局麻和不止血带:有肾上腺素与没有肾上腺素

The Hand Pub Date : 2019-12-07 DOI:10.1177/1558944719890038
S. Sraj
{"title":"腕管释放与完全清醒局麻和不止血带:有肾上腺素与没有肾上腺素","authors":"S. Sraj","doi":"10.1177/1558944719890038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Wide awake local anesthesia and no tourniquet (WALANT) relies on epinephrine to create a relatively bloodless field. This study evaluated the effect of epinephrine on carpal tunnel release (CTR) surgical time and bleeding, including the need for use of a tourniquet or electrocautery. The hypothesis was that wide awake anesthesia without epinephrine is a viable option for CTR but increases operative time. Methods: Records of all patients who underwent CTR under wide awake anesthesia between October 2017 and September 2018 were reviewed. The injection consisted of either 10 cc of 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine mixed with 1 cc of sodium bicarbonate (8.4%) (WALANT group) or 10 cc of 1% lidocaine (wide awake local anesthesia, no tourniquet and no epinephrine [WALANE] group). The time between skin incision and skin closure was calculated. Tourniquet and electrocautery use as well as operative complications were documented. Results: Thirty-two patients underwent 43 CTRs; 22 CTRs were done under WALANT, and 21 CTRs were done under WALANE. The skin-skin time was 12.8 minute (6-25 minute; standard deviation [SD] = 4.7) for WALANT and 17.4 minute (9-30 minute; SD = 5.8) for WALANE. There was a significant statistical difference (36%) in skin-skin time between the 2 groups. None of the patients required electrocautery or a tourniquet. There were no operative complications. Conclusion: Operative time increased by 36% when epinephrine was not used. Epinephrine is not an absolute necessity to perform wide awake anesthesia but, at the same time, has the added value of decreasing surgical time. Level of evidence: IV","PeriodicalId":76630,"journal":{"name":"The Hand","volume":"16 1","pages":"592 - 594"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1558944719890038","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Carpal Tunnel Release With Wide Awake Local Anesthesia and No Tourniquet: With Versus Without Epinephrine\",\"authors\":\"S. Sraj\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1558944719890038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Wide awake local anesthesia and no tourniquet (WALANT) relies on epinephrine to create a relatively bloodless field. This study evaluated the effect of epinephrine on carpal tunnel release (CTR) surgical time and bleeding, including the need for use of a tourniquet or electrocautery. The hypothesis was that wide awake anesthesia without epinephrine is a viable option for CTR but increases operative time. Methods: Records of all patients who underwent CTR under wide awake anesthesia between October 2017 and September 2018 were reviewed. The injection consisted of either 10 cc of 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine mixed with 1 cc of sodium bicarbonate (8.4%) (WALANT group) or 10 cc of 1% lidocaine (wide awake local anesthesia, no tourniquet and no epinephrine [WALANE] group). The time between skin incision and skin closure was calculated. Tourniquet and electrocautery use as well as operative complications were documented. Results: Thirty-two patients underwent 43 CTRs; 22 CTRs were done under WALANT, and 21 CTRs were done under WALANE. The skin-skin time was 12.8 minute (6-25 minute; standard deviation [SD] = 4.7) for WALANT and 17.4 minute (9-30 minute; SD = 5.8) for WALANE. There was a significant statistical difference (36%) in skin-skin time between the 2 groups. None of the patients required electrocautery or a tourniquet. There were no operative complications. Conclusion: Operative time increased by 36% when epinephrine was not used. Epinephrine is not an absolute necessity to perform wide awake anesthesia but, at the same time, has the added value of decreasing surgical time. Level of evidence: IV\",\"PeriodicalId\":76630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Hand\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"592 - 594\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1558944719890038\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Hand\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944719890038\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Hand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944719890038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

背景:广泛清醒的局部麻醉和无止血带(WALANT)依赖肾上腺素来创造一个相对不流血的领域。本研究评估了肾上腺素对腕管松解术(CTR)手术时间和出血的影响,包括是否需要使用止血带或电烙器。假设不使用肾上腺素的全清醒麻醉是CTR的可行选择,但会增加手术时间。方法:回顾2017年10月至2018年9月期间在全清醒麻醉下接受CTR的所有患者的记录。注射由10毫升1%利多卡因与1毫升碳酸氢钠(8.4%)混合的1:100000肾上腺素组成(WALANT组)或10毫升1%的利多卡因(完全清醒局部麻醉,无止血带,无肾上腺素[WALANE]组)。计算从皮肤切开到皮肤闭合之间的时间。止血带和电烙术的使用以及手术并发症都有记录。结果:32例患者接受43次CTR检查;WALANT进行了22次CTR,WALANE进行了21次CTR。WALANT的皮肤剥皮时间为12.8分钟(6-25分钟;标准偏差[SD]=4.7),WALANE的皮肤剥皮时间为17.4分钟(9-30分钟;SD=5.8)。两组之间的皮肤接触时间有显著的统计学差异(36%)。没有一个病人需要电灼或止血带。无手术并发症。结论:在不使用肾上腺素的情况下,手术时间增加了36%。肾上腺素并不是进行全清醒麻醉的绝对必要条件,但同时也具有减少手术时间的附加值。证据级别:IV
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Carpal Tunnel Release With Wide Awake Local Anesthesia and No Tourniquet: With Versus Without Epinephrine
Background: Wide awake local anesthesia and no tourniquet (WALANT) relies on epinephrine to create a relatively bloodless field. This study evaluated the effect of epinephrine on carpal tunnel release (CTR) surgical time and bleeding, including the need for use of a tourniquet or electrocautery. The hypothesis was that wide awake anesthesia without epinephrine is a viable option for CTR but increases operative time. Methods: Records of all patients who underwent CTR under wide awake anesthesia between October 2017 and September 2018 were reviewed. The injection consisted of either 10 cc of 1% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine mixed with 1 cc of sodium bicarbonate (8.4%) (WALANT group) or 10 cc of 1% lidocaine (wide awake local anesthesia, no tourniquet and no epinephrine [WALANE] group). The time between skin incision and skin closure was calculated. Tourniquet and electrocautery use as well as operative complications were documented. Results: Thirty-two patients underwent 43 CTRs; 22 CTRs were done under WALANT, and 21 CTRs were done under WALANE. The skin-skin time was 12.8 minute (6-25 minute; standard deviation [SD] = 4.7) for WALANT and 17.4 minute (9-30 minute; SD = 5.8) for WALANE. There was a significant statistical difference (36%) in skin-skin time between the 2 groups. None of the patients required electrocautery or a tourniquet. There were no operative complications. Conclusion: Operative time increased by 36% when epinephrine was not used. Epinephrine is not an absolute necessity to perform wide awake anesthesia but, at the same time, has the added value of decreasing surgical time. Level of evidence: IV
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Monteggia Fracture Outcomes: Acute to Chronic. Outcomes in Ballistic Injuries to the Hand: Fractures and Nerve/Tendon Damage as Predictors of Poor Outcomes. Predictors of Digital Amputation in Diabetic Patients With Surgically Treated Finger Infections. The Prevalence of Depression and PTSD in Adults With Surgically Managed Traumatic Upper-Extremity Amputations. Postoperative Functional Analysis of Double Crush Versus Single Peripheral Nerve Decompression: A Retrospective Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1