Comparing Minor Hand Procedures Performed with or without the Use of a Tourniquet: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome and trigger finger are two of the most common conditions treated by the hand surgeon. During these procedures, a tourniquet is often used to minimize bleeding and improve visualization of the operative field. However, it may be associated with pain and discomfort. To date, there are few prospective studies investigating the safety and patient-centered outcomes of tourniquet-free minor hand procedures. Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial comparing patients undergoing open carpal tunnel or trigger finger release with or without the use of a tourniquet. Perioperative subjective patient experience was investigated for both techniques. This was measured based on a numerical rating scale for pain, anxiety, and overall satisfaction. In addition, this was an equivalence trial in terms of operative time, bleeding scores, and perioperative complication rates. Results: A total of 67 patients were recruited. Both groups were similar with respect to distribution of age, sex, handedness, anti-platelet use, and tobacco use. Median scores for operative time, anxiety, and overall satisfaction were comparable between the 2 groups. With regard to patient discomfort, median scores were significantly higher in the tourniquet group when compared with the no tourniquet group (3.58 versus 1.68, respectively, P = 0.02). Bleeding scores for the tourniquet group were significantly lower than for the no tourniquet group (1.14 versus 1.90, respectively, P = 0.001). Conclusions: The application of wide awake local anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) in minor hand surgery procedures has been shown to decrease tourniquet-associated discomfort, improving perioperative patient experience. Additionally, it demonstrated the noninferiority of the tourniquet-free technique with respect to operative time and the rate of perioperative complications.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".