Patients Tracking Pain Episodes Show Wide-awake Local Anesthesia Without Tourniquet Can Be Nearly Painless
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Minimally painful tumescent local anesthesia ensures patients feel only the first needle insertion, with no further pain. This technique includes real-time patient feedback, where they report each pain event during injection. Methods: This prospective study involved 154 consecutive patients undergoing wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet surgery at 3 hand surgery centers (January-April 2024). Patients objectively scored pain events during injection and rated pain intensity (0-10 Likert scale), intraoperative pain, anxiety, and overall experience. Results: During local anesthesia injection, 61 (40%) patients reported no pain, 92 (59.7%) reported 1 pain event, and 1 (0.7%) patient reported 2 events. Among the 93 patients who felt pain, 90 reported only mild discomfort (1-2 of 10), whereas 3 reported moderate pain (3-5 of 10). Anxiety levels during anesthesia and surgery were 3 of 10 or less for 147 (95.5%) patients. Conclusions: Real-time patient feedback improved surgeons' ability to administer tumescent local anesthesia with minimal pain. As a result, most patients experienced no pain or only 1 minor event during local anesthesia injection for wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".