Current Trends in WALANT Surgery: A Survey of American Society for Surgery of the Hand Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To define self-reported WALANT use among American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) members. We aimed to define surgeon and practice demographics relative to WALANT use and identify potential barriers for WALANT implementation. Methods: An anonymous multiple-choice survey was electronically distributed to all active ASSH members. Incomplete surveys were included in the final analysis. Surgeons were asked to provide reasons for not performing WALANT, which were categorized based on general themes. We compared practice and surgeon demographic information relative to WALANT use. Results: Of 3,826 ASSH members, 869 responded (23%). A total of 79% of respondents had performed at least one WALANT procedure; 62% currently incorporated WALANT into their practice. Hospital-owned outpatient surgery centers were the most common location for WALANT procedures (31%). Canadian surgeons were more likely to use WALANT, compared with US and international surgeons. Surgeons with fewer years in practice and higher-volume surgeons were more likely to use WALANT. There was no statistically significant association between either practice or income structure and WALANT use. For carpal tunnel release (CTR), 13% did not offer patients WALANT, whereas 43% offered WALANT to all patients. Moreover, 51% of surgeons reported that anesthesia staff was required to be present for WALANT cases at their institution. In determining reasons for not using WALANT, 16% reported that they preferred a tourniquet for visualization. Only 2% had concerns regarding epinephrine use in the hand. Conclusions: The results of this survey illustrate current WALANT use among ASSH members and defines the demographics of those employing WALANT. Lack of familiarity with WALANT and an acceptance of the use of epinephrine in the hand has increased from prior ASSH surveys. Lack of familiarity with the technique, concerns regarding operating room efficiency, and patient preferences remain considerable barriers to more widespread adoption of WALANT procedures. Type of study/level of evidence: Economic and Decision Analysis V.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".