Comparison of the systolic blood pressure and limb occlusion pressure methods in determining effective tourniquet pressure in upper limb surgeries

Chineme Martin Akah, O. Lasebikan, J. Asuquo, Uche A. Katchy, U. Anyaehie, Samuel Chukwudi Uzodimma, K. Madu, B. Asuquo
{"title":"Comparison of the systolic blood pressure and limb occlusion pressure methods in determining effective tourniquet pressure in upper limb surgeries","authors":"Chineme Martin Akah, O. Lasebikan, J. Asuquo, Uche A. Katchy, U. Anyaehie, Samuel Chukwudi Uzodimma, K. Madu, B. Asuquo","doi":"10.25259/kmj_20_2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nThe importance of a tourniquet to a surgeon cannot be over emphasised. Pneumatic tourniquet pressure is usually determined by systolic blood pressure (SBP), but a new emerging method, the limb occlusion pressure (LOP) appears more promising, especially in upper limb surgeries. We compare the effectiveness of the SBP and LOP methods in determining the tourniquet pressure in forearm bone surgeries.\n\n\n\nThis study was a prospective comparative study involving 60 forearm bone surgeries conducted over a 1-year period with randomisation into two groups. Those whose tourniquet pressure was determined using the SBP method (Group A) and those whose pressure was determined using the LOP method (Group B). Data collected included the tourniquet pressure, tourniquet performance using a Likert scale as well as tourniquet-related complications were noted. Analysis was done with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 22 trademark of the International Business Machine) and Excel (version 13.0, Microsoft, Redmond, WA).\n\n\n\nThere was a statistically significant difference in the mean tourniquet pressure between the two groups (SBP = 234.43 ± 11.87 mmHg; LOP = 199.17 ± 16.44 mmHg, P < 0.001). Both methods provided a satisfactory dry field throughout the tourniquet duration with no statistically significance difference in the tourniquet performance between the two groups. Although two cases of tourniquet-related nerve palsy were noted in the SBP group, it was not statistically significant (P = 0.355).\n\n\n\nThe LOP method provided a satisfactory dry surgical field at a lower tourniquet pressure than the SBP method with no complications.\n","PeriodicalId":513551,"journal":{"name":"Karnataka Medical Journal","volume":"43 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Karnataka Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/kmj_20_2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The importance of a tourniquet to a surgeon cannot be over emphasised. Pneumatic tourniquet pressure is usually determined by systolic blood pressure (SBP), but a new emerging method, the limb occlusion pressure (LOP) appears more promising, especially in upper limb surgeries. We compare the effectiveness of the SBP and LOP methods in determining the tourniquet pressure in forearm bone surgeries. This study was a prospective comparative study involving 60 forearm bone surgeries conducted over a 1-year period with randomisation into two groups. Those whose tourniquet pressure was determined using the SBP method (Group A) and those whose pressure was determined using the LOP method (Group B). Data collected included the tourniquet pressure, tourniquet performance using a Likert scale as well as tourniquet-related complications were noted. Analysis was done with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 22 trademark of the International Business Machine) and Excel (version 13.0, Microsoft, Redmond, WA). There was a statistically significant difference in the mean tourniquet pressure between the two groups (SBP = 234.43 ± 11.87 mmHg; LOP = 199.17 ± 16.44 mmHg, P < 0.001). Both methods provided a satisfactory dry field throughout the tourniquet duration with no statistically significance difference in the tourniquet performance between the two groups. Although two cases of tourniquet-related nerve palsy were noted in the SBP group, it was not statistically significant (P = 0.355). The LOP method provided a satisfactory dry surgical field at a lower tourniquet pressure than the SBP method with no complications.
在确定上肢手术中有效止血带压力时收缩压和肢体闭合压方法的比较
止血带对外科医生的重要性怎么强调都不为过。气动止血带压力通常由收缩压(SBP)决定,但一种新出现的方法--肢体闭塞压(LOP)似乎更有前途,尤其是在上肢手术中。我们比较了 SBP 和 LOP 方法在前臂骨手术中确定止血带压力的有效性。本研究是一项前瞻性比较研究,涉及 60 例前臂骨手术,为期 1 年,随机分为两组。使用 SBP 方法确定止血带压力的一组(A 组)和使用 LOP 方法确定止血带压力的一组(B 组)。收集的数据包括止血带压力、使用李克特量表的止血带性能以及止血带相关并发症。两组的平均止血带压力有显著的统计学差异(SBP = 234.43 ± 11.87 mmHg;LOP = 199.17 ± 16.44 mmHg,P < 0.001)。在整个止血带持续时间内,两种方法都能提供令人满意的干燥视野,两组的止血带性能差异无统计学意义。虽然 SBP 组出现了两例与止血带相关的神经麻痹,但无统计学意义(P = 0.355)。与 SBP 方法相比,LOP 方法能以较低的止血带压力提供令人满意的干燥手术野,且无并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信