Dataset Information

Retrospective Analysis of the One-per-Million Tumescent Technique in Post-Burn Hand Deformity Surgeries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of a tourniquet in hand surgery is generally accepted as necessary to create a clear visualization of the operative field. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of one-per-million tumescent solution (1:1,000,000 epinephrine concentration) in creating a bloodless operative field in post-burn hand deformity surgeries performed without a tourniquet.

Methods

This retrospective observational study was conducted on a series of 12 patients with post-burn hand deformities who underwent surgery between February 2013 and January 2014. A total of 29 operative fields were recorded. The one-per-million tumescent solution was used for hemostatis instead of a tourniquet. The clarity of the operative field, volume of solution injected, duration of surgery, scar thickness and density, and functional outcomes at least three months after the surgery were observed. The relationship of scar thickness and density with the clarity of the operative field was analyzed with the chi-square test.

Results

Of the 29 operative fields in which the one-per-million tumescent technique was used, 48.2% were totally bloodless, 44.8% had minimal bleeding, and 6.9% had an acceptable level of bleeding. Both scar thickness and density were shown to have a significant relationship with operative field clarity (P<0.05).

Conclusions

The one-per-million tumescent technique is effective in facilitating post-burn hand deformity surgeries involving meticulous, multiple, and lengthy procedures by creating a relatively clear operative field without the use of a tourniquet. Although scar thickness and density are associated with the clarity of the operative field, this technique can be considered safe and effective in creating a clear operative field.

SUBMITTER: Prasetyono TO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4366697 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTumescent anaesthesia (TA) is a widely used technique in oncologic surgeries necessitating large resection margins. This technique produces transoperative and postoperative analgesia, reduces surgical bleeding, and facilitates tissue divulsion. This prospective, randomised, blind study evaluated the use of TA in bitches submitted to mastectomy and compared the effect of TA with an intravenous fentanyl bolus. A 2.5-mcg/kg intravenous fentanyl bolus (n = 10) was compared with TA using 0.275% lidocaine (n = 10) in bitches submitted to unilateral mastectomy. Sedation was performed by intramuscular (IM) injection of 0.05 mg/kg of acepromazine combined with 2 mg/kg of meperidine. Anaesthesia was induced with 5 mg/kg of intravenous propofol and maintained with isoflurane/O2. Heart and respiratory rates; systolic, mean, and diastolic arterial blood pressures; central venous pressure; SpO2; ETCO2; inspired and expired isoflurane concentrations; and temperature were measured transoperatively. Visual analogue scales for sedation and pain and the Glasgow composite and Melbourne pain scales were used for postoperative assessment. The surgeon investigated the quality of the surgical approach, considering bleeding and resection ability, and the incidence of postoperative wound complications.ResultsThe heart rate was lower and the end-tidal isoflurane concentration was higher in dogs treated with fentanyl than in dogs treated with TA. A fentanyl bolus was administered to 8 of 10 dogs treated with fentanyl and to none treated with TA. Intraoperative bleeding and the mammary gland excision time were lower in dogs treated with TA. The maximal mean and individual plasma lidocaine concentrations were 1426 ± 502 ng/ml and 2443 ng/ml at 90 minutes after infiltration, respectively. The Glasgow Composite Pain Scale scores were higher in dogs treated with fentanyl than in dogs treated with TA until 2 hours after extubation.ConclusionsCompared with intravenous fentanyl, TA in bitches: may be easily performed in non-inflamed, ulcerated, adhered mammary tumours; has an isoflurane-sparing effect; improves transoperative and immediate postoperative analgesia; is apparently safe for use in clinical conditions as evidenced by the fact that it did not produce any adverse signs or lidocaine plasma concentrations compatible with toxicity; does not modify the recovery time; and facilitates the surgical procedure without interfering with wound healing.