Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Potential advantages of an additional forearm rubber tourniquet in intravenous regional anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Anesthesia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Although the usefulness of an additional forearm tourniquet to conventional intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) has been reported, the forearm cuff may disturb the surgical field to some degree, especially in wrist surgery. In the present study, we assessed the clinical efficacy of a temporary additional forearm rubber tourniquet to the conventional upper arm tourniquet on the quality of IVRA.

Methods

The study included 32 ASA physical status I and II adult patients undergoing elective hand surgery who were randomly allocated to either an additional forearm tourniquet group (Group F) or to a conventional upper arm tourniquet group (Group C). Upper arm tourniquet IVRA was established using 40 mL of 0.5 % lidocaine in Group C. Hypothetically enhanced forearm tourniquet IVRA was established using 10 mL of 0.5 % lidocaine with an additional forearm rubber tourniquet and then administering 30 mL of 0.25 % lidocaine after removing the forearm tourniquet in Group F. The sensory and motor block onset and recovery times, onset time of tourniquet pain, intraoperative fentanyl consumption, and incidence of local anesthetic toxicity were recorded. The numerical rating score (NRS) of perioperative and postoperative pain and quality of anesthesia were also assessed.

Results

Although the total dose of lidocaine in Group F was less and the sensory and motor block onset times were significantly shorter in Group F than those in Group C (P < 0.05), there was no difference regarding sensory and motor block recovery times, onset time of tourniquet pain, intraoperative fentanyl consumption, NRS of perioperative and postoperative pain, and the quality of anesthesia in the two groups (P > 0.05). Compared with Group C, the incidence of local anesthetic toxicity (i.e., dizziness, 43.8 vs 6.2 %, P = 0.02) was significantly decreased in Group F.

Conclusions

The combination of the additional forearm and upper arm tourniquets with a smaller amount of local anesthetic achieved more rapid onset of sensory and motor block, a similar quality of anesthesia and a lower incidence of local anesthetic toxicity compared with the conventional technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Van Zundert A, Helmstadter A, Goerig M, Mortier E. Centennial of intravenous regional anesthesia. Bier’s block (1908–2008). Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008;33:483–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Werk LN, Lewis M, Armatti-Wiltrout S, Loveless EA. Comparing the effectiveness of modified forearm and conventional minidose intravenous regional anesthesia for reduction of distal forearm fractures in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28:410–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fletcher SJ, Hulgur MD, Varma S, Lawrence E, Boome RS, Oswal S. Use of a temporary forearm tourniquet for intravenous regional anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28:133–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Guay J. Adverse events associated with intravenous regional anesthesia (Bier block): a systematic review of complications. J Clin Anesth. 2009;21:585–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chong AK, Tan DM, Ooi BS, Mahadevan M, Lim AY, Lim BH. Comparison of forearm and conventional Bier’s blocks for manipulation and reduction of distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Eur. 2007;32:57–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Acalovschi I, Cristea T. Intravenous regional anesthesia with meperidine. Anesth Analg. 1995;81:539–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Turan A, Karamanlyoglu B, Memis D, Kaya G, Pamukcu Z. Intravenous regional anesthesia using prilocaine and neostigmine. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:1419–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Asik I, Kocum AI, Goktug A, Turhan KS, Alkis N. Comparison of ropivacaine 0.2 % and 0.25 % with lidocaine 0.5 % for intravenous regional anesthesia. J Clin Anesth. 2009;21:401–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis R, Keenan J, Meza A, Danaher P, Vacchiano C, Olson RL, Maye J. Use of a simple forearm tourniquet as an adjunct to an intravenous regional block. AANA J. 2002;70:295–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reuben SS, Steinberg RB, Maciolek H, Manikantan P. An evaluation of analgesic efficacy of intravenous regional anesthesia with lidocaine and ketorolac using forearm vs upper arm tourniquet. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:457–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Singh R, Bhagwat A, Bhadoria P, Kohli A. Forearm IVRA, using 0.5 % lidocaine in a dose of 1.5 mg/kg with ketorolac 0.15 mg/kg for hand and wrist surgeries. Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:109–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosenberg PH. 1992 ASRA lecture. Intravenous regional anesthesia: nerve block by multiple mechanisms. Reg Anesth. 1993;18:1–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ye L, Liu J, Zhu T. A useful modification of the Bier’s block. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenberg PH, Kalso EA, Tuominen MK, Linden HB. Acute bupivacaine toxicity as a result of venous leakage under the tourniquet cuff during a Bier block. Anesthesiology. 1983;58:95–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by Grant 30772084 from the National Nature Science Foundation of China.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Anesthesiology, Translational Medical Neuroscience Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China

      Li Song, Chaoran Wu, Jin Liu & Yunxia Zuo

    2. Pain Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA

      Ernest Volinn

    3. Department of Anesthesiology, The 1st Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, 650032, Yunnan, China

      Jiaxiang Yao

    Authors
    1. Li Song
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Chaoran Wu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Jin Liu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Yunxia Zuo
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Ernest Volinn
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Jiaxiang Yao
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Jin Liu.

    Additional information

    J. Liu and Y. Zuo contributed equally to this work.

    IRB Contact Information: Registration number: ChiCTR-TRC-12002001, Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR), No. 37, Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, China 610041, Tel: +86-28-8542-2081, Fax: +86-28-8542-2253, Email: chictr@hotmail.com.

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Song, L., Wu, C., Liu, J. et al. Potential advantages of an additional forearm rubber tourniquet in intravenous regional anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. J Anesth 29, 551–556 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-015-1988-x

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-015-1988-x

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation