We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Comparison of digital versus metacarpal blocks for repair of finger injuries.
Annals of Emergency Medicine 1994 June
STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study compared efficacy, degree of discomfort, and time to anesthesia of digital blocks and metacarpal blocks for digital anesthesia.
DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, nonblinded, clinical study conducted from April 1992 to January 1993. Patients served as their own controls.
SETTING: Inner-city and community hospital emergency departments.
TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 30 adult patients, with third or fourth finger injuries including and distal to the proximal interphalangeal joint that required digital anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS: Digital blocks and a metacarpal blocks were performed (one per side) on all 30 patients (total of 60 blocks). The order of the blocks was randomized.
MEASUREMENTS: A digital block and a metacarpal block were performed on each patient. Patients immediately rated the pain associated with each technique on a nonsegmented visual analog scale. Efficacy was assessed by requirement for additional anesthesia and anesthesia to pinprick. Time to anesthesia was assessed after each block in 23 patients.
RESULTS: Mean visual analog scale pain scores were 2.53 for digital block and 3.38 for metacarpal block (P = .1751, Student's t-test). Metacarpal block failed anesthesia to pinprick in 23% of patients compared to 3% for digital block (P = .0227, chi 2). Time to anesthesia was significantly shorter for digital block compared to metacarpal block, with a mean of 2.82 minutes versus 6.35 minutes (P < .0001, Student's t-test).
CONCLUSION: Digital block and metacarpal block, as described in this study, are equally painful procedures. Digital block, however, is more efficacious and requires significantly less time to anesthesia for the injured finger.
DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, nonblinded, clinical study conducted from April 1992 to January 1993. Patients served as their own controls.
SETTING: Inner-city and community hospital emergency departments.
TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 30 adult patients, with third or fourth finger injuries including and distal to the proximal interphalangeal joint that required digital anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS: Digital blocks and a metacarpal blocks were performed (one per side) on all 30 patients (total of 60 blocks). The order of the blocks was randomized.
MEASUREMENTS: A digital block and a metacarpal block were performed on each patient. Patients immediately rated the pain associated with each technique on a nonsegmented visual analog scale. Efficacy was assessed by requirement for additional anesthesia and anesthesia to pinprick. Time to anesthesia was assessed after each block in 23 patients.
RESULTS: Mean visual analog scale pain scores were 2.53 for digital block and 3.38 for metacarpal block (P = .1751, Student's t-test). Metacarpal block failed anesthesia to pinprick in 23% of patients compared to 3% for digital block (P = .0227, chi 2). Time to anesthesia was significantly shorter for digital block compared to metacarpal block, with a mean of 2.82 minutes versus 6.35 minutes (P < .0001, Student's t-test).
CONCLUSION: Digital block and metacarpal block, as described in this study, are equally painful procedures. Digital block, however, is more efficacious and requires significantly less time to anesthesia for the injured finger.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app