JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Coleman, M. M.
Right arrow Articles by Hendler, A. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Coleman, M. M.
Right arrow Articles by Hendler, A. L.
Anesth Analg 1999;89:1482
© 1999 International Anesthesia Research Society

REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MANAGEMENT

Quantitative Comparison of Leakage Under the Tourniquet in Forearm Versus Conventional Intravenous Regional Anesthesia

Margaret M. Coleman, FFARCSI*, Philip W. Peng, FRCPC*, Joan M. Regan, FFARCSI*, Vincent W. S. Chan, FRCPC*, and Aaron L. Hendler, FRCPC{dagger}

*Department of Anesthesia and {dagger}Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Toronto, The Toronto Hospital, Toronto, Canada

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Philip Peng, Department of Anesthesia, The Toronto Hospital, Western Division, 399 Bathurst St., Toronto M5T 2S8, Canada. Address e-mail to ppeng{at}torhosp.toronto.on.ca

We compared the quantitative leakage between forearm and conventional IV regional anesthesia (IVRA). Forearm IVRA remains unpopular because of the theoretical risk of local anesthetic leakage through the interosseous vessels. IVRA was simulated on the forearm or arm during two separate, randomized sessions using a double tourniquet in 14 volunteers. A radiolabeled substance, DISIDA (99m Tc-disofenin) with a structure similar to lidocaine, was injected instead of local anesthetic. Volumes of 0.4 mL/kg (maximum 25 mL), were used for forearm IVRA and 0.6 mL/kg (maximum 45 mL) for conventional IVRA. A {gamma} camera recorded radioactivity levels in the limb distal to the tourniquet every 30 s while the tourniquet was inflated (25 min) and for 20 min postdeflation. The leakage of radiolabeled substance during inflation was similar in both groups, 6% ± 12% (mean ± SD) from the forearm and 10% ± 20% from the upper arm. After deflation, mean loss of radioactivity was higher in conventional IVRA, 70% ± 7% vs 57% ± 11% and 82% ± 5% vs 69% ± 11% at 3 and 20 min, respectively (P < 0.001). We conclude that forearm IVRA results in tourniquet leakage comparable to conventional IVRA and is potentially safer because the required dose of local anesthetic is smaller.

Implications: Using a tourniquet on the forearm for IV regional anesthesia does not increase the risk of drug leakage. This is potentially a safer technique compared with conventional IV regional anesthesia because a much smaller dose of local anesthetic is required.






Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 1999 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.