Forearm rescue cuff improves tourniquet tolerance during intravenous regional anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Tourniquet pain during intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) of the upper limb is common and can limit tourniquet inflation time. We hypothesize that a forearm rescue cuff is better tolerated than the traditional rescue cuff of a double-cuff tourniquet. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and informed consent, 10 healthy unmedicated volunteers took part in a prospective, randomized, cross-over study. Following inflation of the proximal tourniquet cuff on the upper arm, a standardized IVRA with 0.5% lidocaine, 0.6 mL/kg was administered. When the volunteer complained of tourniquet pain, or at 30 minutes, the initial cuff was changed to a rescue cuff. During session A, the rescue cuff was the traditional distal cuff of the double-cuff tourniquet. During session B, a single forearm cuff was used. When the volunteer experienced the same level of tourniquet pain, the rescue cuff was deflated and the study session ended. The tourniquet time for the rescue cuff, the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and the incidence and duration of side effects were recorded. RESULTS: The forearm rescue cuff was tolerated significantly longer than the arm rescue cuff (49 +/- 15 v 29 +/- 11 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7 to 32 minutes, P </=.005). When the forearm rescue cuff was used, VAS scores were lower and side effects were of shorter duration (6 +/- 5 v 15 +/- 7 minutes, P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: A forearm rescue cuff is better tolerated than an arm cuff double tourniquet during IVRA, allowing for longer tourniquet times. It is also associated with lower pain scores and shorter duration of local anesthetic side effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".