Evaluation of the safety of epinephrine in digital nerve blockade: Retrospective case series analysis of 1334 toe surgeries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To evaluate the safety profile of lidocaine containing 1:200 000 to 1:100 000 epinephrine with concurrent tourniquet use in patients undergoing toe surgery. Design A retrospective case series analysis of toe procedures performed under digital blockade with adjuvant vasopressor from January 25, 2009, to May 31, 2014, was conducted. Exclusion criteria were limited to procedures performed without adjuvant vasopressor use. Setting A single clinic in Ontario. Participants A total of 1334 toe procedures performed in 937 patients. Main outcome measures The primary study outcome was the incidence of postoperative digital necrosis. Secondary outcomes included other postoperative complications including infection, reperfusion injury, persistent granulation, and damage to the nail matrix. Results In total, 1334 toe procedures were included in this study, of which 45 involved patients with a pre-existing diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was low (4.6%). No cases of digital ischemia or gangrenous necrosis were observed. Subgroup analysis of patients with and without diabetes showed no statistically significant difference in the rate of complications. Conclusion This study demonstrates the safety of adjuvant vasopressor use in digital nerve blockade of the toes within a large, diverse population. This study adds to a growing base of evidence on the safety of lidocaine with 1:200 000 to 1:100 000 epinephrine for digital anesthesia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".