A comprehensive review of epinephrine in the finger: to do or not to do

A multicenter prospective study of 3,110 consecutive cases of elective epinephrine use in the fingers and hand: the Dalhousie Project clinical phase

PURPOSE

To examine prospectively the incidence of digital infarction and phentolamine rescue in a large series of patients in whom local anesthesia with adrenaline was injected electively into the hand and fingers. There continues to be a commonly held belief that epinephrine injection is contraindicated in the finger despite a lack of valid evidence to support this concept in the literature.

METHODS

From 2002 to 2004 there were 9 hand surgeons in 6 cities who prospectively recorded each consecutive case of elective hand and finger epinephrine injection. They recorded each instance of skin or tissue loss and the number of times phentolamine reversal of adrenaline vasoconstriction was required.

RESULTS

There were 3,110 consecutive cases of elective injection of low-dose epinephrine (1:100,000 or less) in the hand and fingers and none produced any instance of digital tissue loss. Phentolamine was not required to reverse the vasoconstriction in any patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The true incidence of finger infarction in elective low-dose epinephrine injection into the hand and finger is likely to be remote, particularly with the possible rescue with phentolamine.

Digital anesthesia with epinephrine: an old myth revisited

BACKGROUND

The prohibition against the use epinephrine with local anesthetics for digital blocks or infiltrative anesthesia is an established dogma in dermatologic surgery. Major textbooks reinforce this teaching suggesting that there is substantial risk of digital gangrene caused by local anesthesia containing epinephrine.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive literature review of the cases of digital necrosis associated with the use of local anesthesia containing epinephrine.

METHODS

A PubMed search of the National Library of Medicine database using the terms "lidocaine" and "epinephrine" and "finger" with no specified limits was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 16 papers were referenced and only 6 papers dealt with digital anesthesia. A total of 50 cases of digital gangrene were reported, mostly in the early part of the 20th century. In 21 cases digital gangrene was associated with anesthetic mixed with epinephrine. Actual concentration of epinephrine was known in only 4 cases. Careful analysis of all cases of necrosis did not support epinephrine itself as a cause. Other contributing factors including older compounds (cocaine, eukaine, and procaine), non-standardized inaccurate methods of mixing epinephrine with lidocaine, inappropriate use of a tourniquet, postoperative hot soaks, infection, or large anesthetic volume were also present. None of the reported cases were associated with the use of a commercial lidocaine-epinephrine mixture.

CONCLUSION

A literature review failed to provide evidence to support the dogma that block or infiltrative anesthesia with lidocaine and epinephrine produces digital necrosis. Proper injection technique and adequate selection of patients (absence of thrombotic, vasospastic conditions, or uncontrolled hypertension) are mandatory to minimize complications. The addition of epinephrine, in fact, reduces the need for the use of tourniquets and large volumes of anesthetic and provides better and longer pain control during digital procedures.

Epinephrine in digital block: color Doppler flow imaging

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine is currently added to local anesthetics for its advantageous vasoconstrictive effects. Traditionally, however, its use is not advised for digital block anesthesia due to the risk of digital gangrene.

OBJECTIVE

To observe vasoconstrictive effect of epinephrine in digital block anesthesia.

METHODS

Digital blocking with epinephrine containing lidocaine was performed in 24 subjects undergoing surgical procedure of their finger and toes. Digital artery blood flows were studied with color Doppler ultrasonography before digital blocking and at 10th, 60th, and if needed 90th minutes after blocking. Doppler parameters such as peak systolic velocity, end diastolic velocity, and resistive index values were studied.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant decrease of blood flow rates and an increase of resistive index in all patients within 10 minutes. At the 10th minute of digital block, four patients had no measurable blood flow, which was restored within 60 or 90 minutes. Others showed diminished but persistent blood flow, which returned to normal within 60 minutes. No systemic or local complication related with epinephrine usage was observed.

CONCLUSION

Vasoconstrictive effect of epinephrine in local anesthetics is not persistent and resolves within 60 or 90 minutes. Its use seems to be safe in selected patients.

Safe treatment of trigger finger with longitudinal and transverse landmarks: an anatomic study of the border fingers for percutaneous release

Transverse landmarks have recently been determined to predict the proximal and distal edges of the A1 pulley for trigger finger release. Percutaneous A1 pulley release has been discouraged for the border digits because of the risk of injury to the neurovascular structures of the index and small fingers. The purpose of the study was to identify longitudinal surface landmarks to prevent injury to the neurovascular bundles during percutaneous A1 pulley release of the ulnar and radial border digits. Longitudinal surface landmarks were identified and marked on 29 cadaver hands. Proximal and distal landmarks for the longitudinal vector through which the A1 pulley of the small finger was released include the midline of the proximal digital crease and the scaphoid tubercle. Proximal and distal landmarks for the longitudinal line through which the index finger A1 pulley was released include the midline of proximal digital crease and radial edge of the pisiform. Longitudinal incisions were performed between these landmarks, straight through the skin and deep enough to score the A1 pulley. The distance of the medial edge of the neurovascular structures from the longitudinal incision in the A1 pulley was measured for each small finger and index finger. Using these longitudinal landmarks for the index and small fingers, none of the neurovascular structures was injured while performing these longitudinal incisions through the skin, scoring the A1 pulley. In fact, the average distance for the neurovascular structures from the longitudinal vector of the small finger was 5.4 +/- 1.4 mm radially and 6.7 +/- 1.9 mm ulnarly. The average distance for the neurovascular structures from the longitudinal line of the index finger was 8.5 +/- 1.8 mm radially and 6.2 +/- 1.7 mm ulnarly. Based on the findings of this anatomical study, these longitudinal landmarks can be used to avoid injury to neurovascular structures in the management of trigger finger involving the border digits with steroid-injection, open, or percutaneous A1 pulley release.