Comparison of pain and extent of anesthesia in digital blocks for isolated finger lacerations: A randomized controlled trial.

IF 1.1 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Ali Jarragh, Ali Lari, Waleed Burhamah, Mohammed Alherz, Abdullah Nouri, Yahia Alshammari, Ameer Al-Jasim, Sulaiman AlRefai, Naser Alnusif
{"title":"Comparison of pain and extent of anesthesia in digital blocks for isolated finger lacerations: A randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Ali Jarragh,&nbsp;Ali Lari,&nbsp;Waleed Burhamah,&nbsp;Mohammed Alherz,&nbsp;Abdullah Nouri,&nbsp;Yahia Alshammari,&nbsp;Ameer Al-Jasim,&nbsp;Sulaiman AlRefai,&nbsp;Naser Alnusif","doi":"10.4103/tjem.tjem_344_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Digital injuries are among the most common presentations to the emergency department. In order to sufficiently examine and manage these injuries, adequate, prompt, and predictable anesthesia is essential. In this trial, we aim to primarily compare the degree of pain and anesthesia onset time between the two-injection dorsal block technique (TD) and the single-injection volar subcutaneous block (SV) technique. Further, we describe the temporal and anatomical effects of both techniques for an accurate delineation of the anesthetized regions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial involving patients presenting with isolated wounds to the fingers requiring primary repair under local anesthesia. Patients were randomized to either the SV or TD blocks. The primary outcome was procedure-related pain (Numerical Rating Scale). Further, we assessed the extent of anesthesia along with the anesthesia onset time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 100 patients were included in the final analysis, 50 on each arm of the study. The median pain score during injection was significantly higher in patients who received TD block than patients who received SV block (median [interquartile range] = 4 [2.25, 5.00] vs. 3.00 [2.00, 4.00], respectively, <i>P</i> = 0.006). However, anesthesia onset time was not statistically different among the groups (<i>P</i> = 0.39). The extent of anesthesia was more predictable in the dorsal block compared to the volar block.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The single-injection volar subcutaneous blocks are less painful with a similar anesthesia onset time. Injuries presenting in the proximal dorsal region may benefit from the two-injection dorsal blocks, given the anatomical differences and timely anesthesia of the region.</p>","PeriodicalId":46536,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7d/fa/TJEM-22-125.PMC9355069.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjem.tjem_344_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: Digital injuries are among the most common presentations to the emergency department. In order to sufficiently examine and manage these injuries, adequate, prompt, and predictable anesthesia is essential. In this trial, we aim to primarily compare the degree of pain and anesthesia onset time between the two-injection dorsal block technique (TD) and the single-injection volar subcutaneous block (SV) technique. Further, we describe the temporal and anatomical effects of both techniques for an accurate delineation of the anesthetized regions.

Methods: This is a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial involving patients presenting with isolated wounds to the fingers requiring primary repair under local anesthesia. Patients were randomized to either the SV or TD blocks. The primary outcome was procedure-related pain (Numerical Rating Scale). Further, we assessed the extent of anesthesia along with the anesthesia onset time.

Results: A total of 100 patients were included in the final analysis, 50 on each arm of the study. The median pain score during injection was significantly higher in patients who received TD block than patients who received SV block (median [interquartile range] = 4 [2.25, 5.00] vs. 3.00 [2.00, 4.00], respectively, P = 0.006). However, anesthesia onset time was not statistically different among the groups (P = 0.39). The extent of anesthesia was more predictable in the dorsal block compared to the volar block.

Conclusion: The single-injection volar subcutaneous blocks are less painful with a similar anesthesia onset time. Injuries presenting in the proximal dorsal region may benefit from the two-injection dorsal blocks, given the anatomical differences and timely anesthesia of the region.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

孤立手指裂伤手指阻滞疼痛和麻醉程度的比较:一项随机对照试验。
目的:数字损伤是急诊室最常见的表现之一。为了充分检查和处理这些损伤,充分、及时和可预测的麻醉是必不可少的。在本试验中,我们的主要目的是比较两次注射背侧阻滞技术(TD)和单次注射掌侧皮下阻滞技术(SV)的疼痛程度和麻醉开始时间。此外,我们描述了这两种技术的时间和解剖效果,以准确描绘麻醉区域。方法:这是一项单中心前瞻性随机对照试验,涉及在局部麻醉下需要初级修复的孤立手指伤口患者。患者被随机分为SV组和TD组。主要结果是手术相关疼痛(数值评定量表)。此外,我们评估了麻醉程度和麻醉开始时间。结果:最终分析共纳入100例患者,每组各50例。注射过程中,接受TD阻断的患者疼痛评分中位数明显高于接受SV阻断的患者(中位数[四分位数间距]= 4 [2.25,5.00]vs. 3.00 [2.00, 4.00], P = 0.006)。麻醉起效时间各组间差异无统计学意义(P = 0.39)。与掌侧阻滞相比,背侧阻滞的麻醉程度更可预测。结论:单次注射掌侧皮下阻滞在麻醉起效时间相近的情况下疼痛较小。鉴于解剖差异和该区域的及时麻醉,在近背区域出现的损伤可能受益于两次注射背侧阻滞。
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine (Turk J Emerg Med) is an International, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes clinical and experimental trials, case reports, invited reviews, case images, letters to the Editor, and interesting research conducted in all fields of Emergency Medicine. The Journal is the official scientific publication of the Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey (EMAT) and is printed four times a year, in January, April, July and October. The language of the journal is English. The Journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted. The authors are responsible for the scientific content of the material to be published. The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine reserves the right to request any research materials on which the paper is based. The Editorial Board of the Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the US National Library of Medicine, the US Office of Research Integrity, the European Association of Science Editors, and the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors.
×
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