Trigger Finger Release Using Wide-Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet Versus Local Anesthesia With a Tourniquet: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
Trigger finger release (TFR) is a common hand surgery, historically performed using a tourniquet. Recently, wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) has gained popularity due to ostensible advantages such as improved patient pain, satisfaction, lower rate of complications, and decreased cost. This systematic review compares outcomes of WALANT for TFR with local anesthesia with a tourniquet (LAWT). MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. All English-language peer-reviewed randomized and observational studies assessing TFR in adults were included. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Eleven studies (4 randomized controlled trials, 7 observational) including 1233 patients were identified. In the WALANT group, pain on injection was statistically nonsignificantly lower (mean difference [MD]: −1.69 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −4.14 to 0.76, P = .18) and postoperative pain was statistically lower in 2 studies. Patient and physician satisfaction were higher and analgesic use was lower in WALANT. There were no significant differences between groups for functional outcomes or rates of adverse events. Preoperative time was longer (MD: 26.43 minutes, 95% CI = 15.36 to 37.51, P < .01), operative time similar (MD: −0.59 minutes, 95% CI = −2.37 to 1.20, P = .52), postoperative time shorter (MD: −27.72 minutes, 95% CI = −36.95 to −18.48, P < .01), and cost lower (MD: −52.2%, 95% CI = −79.9% to −24.5%) in WALANT versus LAWT. The GRADE certainty of evidence of these results ranges from very low to low. This systematic review does not confirm superiority of WALANT over LAWT for TFR due to moderate to high risk of bias of included studies; further robust trials must be conducted.
