One-per-mil tumescent technique for bone and joint surgery in hand

A randomized controlled trial: Comparison of one-per-mil tumescent technique and tourniquet in surgery for burn hand contracture in creating clear operative field and assessment of functional outcome

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the use of one-per-mil tumescent solution (a mixture of epinephrine and 0.2% lidocaine in a ratio of 1:1,000,000 in normal saline solution) and tourniquet to create clear operative fields and to evaluate the functional outcomes after post burn hand contracture surgery.

METHODS

The subjects of this randomized controlled trial were divided into one-permil tumescent technique and tourniquet group for a similar surgical procedure. Three independent assessors evaluated the clarity of the operative fields through recorded videos for the first 15 min and the first 10-minute of each hour of the surgery. Functional outcome was evaluated at least three months postoperatively using total active and passive motion (TAM and TPM) of each digit. Malondialdehyde (MDA) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) were tested during baseline (5 min before the procedures), ischemia phase, and reperfusion phase (a phase when the blood flow returned to the tissue).

RESULTS

35 subjects were included in this study: 17 in the tumescent group and 18 in the tourniquet group. We found a significant difference in the clarity of operative field between tumescent and tourniquet groups, 5 vs 35 bloodless operative fields, respectively (p < 0.05). TAM and TPM of each digit before surgery and 3 months postoperatively showed no significant difference between both groups (p > 0.05). Furthermore, we found no difference in MDA and TNF-α levels between both groups at their respective phases.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of one-per-mil tumescent technique does not replace tourniquet use to create bloodless operative fields in burned hand contracture surgery. However, the postoperative functional results were similar in both groups showing that tumescent technique can be used as an alternative to tourniquet without compromising outcomes. The MDA and TNF-α examinations do not provide conclusive outcomes regarding ischemia and reperfusion injury.

Epinephrine one-per-mil tumescent solution in hand surgery: Review of experimental and clinical studies

One-per-mil epinephrine solution (1:1,000,000) injected as a tumescent has been used in several hand and upper-limb surgery cases as a substitute for tourniquet. However, reviews of its effectiveness are still lacking. A comprehensive review was conducted based on PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Semantic Scholar database search of relevant studies using the keyword "one-per-mil." Studies not using the exact one-per-mil tumescent solution formula were excluded. The review of clinical studies was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Epinephrine and the hydrostatic vasocompressive effect created bloodless operative fields, with 100% experimental flap survival after ischemic insult. The technique was effective in creating bloodless operative fields in 36.3% of varied hand and upper-limb surgery cases and in fully awake surgery. Current studies show that one-per-mil tumescent solution is safe and effective, enabling use of tourniquet to be avoided.

The Onset and Duration of Action of 0.2% Lidocaine in a One-per-Mil Tumescent Solution for Hand Surgery

Background

One-per-mil tumescent solution, which contains 0.2% lidocaine with 1:1,000,000 epinephrine, has been reported to be clinically effective for hand surgery under local anesthesia. However, it was lacking in its basic pharmacokinetics profile in regard to the onset of action (OOA) and duration of action (DOA).

Methods

A randomized, double-blind study was conducted on 12 volunteers who met the inclusion criteria from October to November 2014. All volunteers had their right and left ring finger pulps injected with either one-per-mil solution or 2% lidocaine. Semmes-Weinstein and two-point discrimination tests were used to test sensation. Visual analogue scale was recorded at the time when the finger lost its sensation and when it regained normal sensation to measure the OOA and DOA. The data were then analyzed with a paired t-test and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

The OOA and DOA of 2% plain lidocaine were 1 minute and 99.67 minutes, respectively. Meanwhile, 0.2% lidocaine in a one-per-mil tumescent solution showed an OOA of 5 minutes and a DOA of 186.83 minutes. The OOA of 0.2% lidocaine in a one-per-mil tumescent solution is statistically shorter than 2% plain lidocaine (P=0.04); while its DOA is statistically longer than 2% plain lidocaine (P<0.001).

Conclusions

The 0.2% lidocaine in a one-per-mil tumescent solution is statistically and clinically superior to 2% plain lidocaine in achieving longer duration of local anesthesia.