WALANT vs standard anaesthesia in the management of flexor tendon injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

WALANT 与标准麻醉在屈肌腱损伤治疗中的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:1

Abstract

Wide awake local anaesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) surgery has gained increasing popularity in recent years for hand surgery fast-tracked by the COVID pandemic. It involves infiltration of lidocaine with adrenaline to the operative region ensuring a good visual field owing to the vasoconstrictive effects of epinephrine. It has numerous advantages over traditional anaesthetic (TA) for flexor tendon repairs including testing of tendon strength on table as well as immediate revision of the repair if needed. Currently there are a number of studies in the literature evaluating WALANT versus TA in flexor tendon injuries with continuing debate on the optimal modality but no amalgamated synthesis of data. The authors report the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic. The authors conducted the review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies comparing flexor tendon repairs under WALANT versus TA were included. The primary outcome measure was range of movement (ROM) with secondary outcomes including adhesions/tenolysis, rupture as well as re-operation rates. OpenMeta[Analyst] software was utilised for data synthesis. Five studies in total met the inclusion criteria with an overall assessment of 624 fingers. There was no significant difference observed between WALANT and TA for tendon rupture; odds ratio 1.027 (0.450, 2.342) p-value = 0.950, the incidence of adhesions/tenolysis; odds ratio 0.601 (0.172, 2.093) p-value = 0.424 or re-operation rates; odds ratio 1.193 (0.544, 2.618) p-value = 0.659. ROM was reported to be better in the WALANT cohort; odds ratio: 1.641 (1.010, 2.669) p-value = 0.046. WALANT offers a safe and effective mode of anaesthetic over traditional modalities with comparable outcomes for flexor tendon repairs. Although ROM appears superior, the number of randomised control trials are currently low and more high quality studies are necessitated to enhance the current evidence base.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。