ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2025
A Comparative Study Between Arm Intravenous Regional Anesthesia Versus Forearm Intravenous Regional Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Hand and Wrist Surgery.
Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) is a widely used technique for hand and wrist surgeries. However, conventional upper arm IVRA requires higher anesthetic doses, which increases the risk of systemic toxicity. Forearm IVRA offers potential advantages, including lower anesthetic requirements and improved tourniquet tolerance. Objectives: The study aims to compare the efficacy, analgesic effectiveness, and safety of forearm versus upper arm IVRA in elective hand and wrist surgeries. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, open-label clinical trial, 140 adult patients, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I - II and aged 21 - 65 years, scheduled for elective hand or wrist surgery at Ain Shams University Hospitals, were randomized into two equal groups: Upper arm IVRA and forearm IVRA. The outcomes measured included block success, onset of analgesia, tourniquet pain-free duration, pain scores, rescue analgesia requirements, and patient and surgeon satisfaction. Results: Block success rates were similar between the forearm and upper arm IVRA groups (94.3% vs. 91.4%, P = 0.512). Forearm IVRA demonstrated a significantly longer tourniquet pain-free duration (45.7 ± 4.6 vs. 43.2 ± 4.7 minutes, P = 0.002) and a longer time to the first postoperative analgesic request (8.9 ± 0.9 vs. 5.8 ± 1.0 hours, P < 0.001), with lower 24-hour nalbuphine consumption (11.4 ± 4.2 vs. 28.7 ± 3.4 mg, P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was higher in the forearm group (P < 0.001), while surgeon satisfaction did not differ significantly (P = 0.145). Conclusions: Forearm IVRA is an effective and safe alternative to upper arm IVRA for hand and wrist surgeries, offering superior tourniquet tolerance, prolonged analgesia, reduced opioid requirements, and higher patient satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.