Is there a need for postoperative monitoring after open carpal tunnel release under WALANT?

Open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) under wide-awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet (WALANT) is a common outpatient procedure in hand surgery worldwide. In our clinic, WALANT has replaced intravenous regional anesthesia with a tourniquet (IVRA, or 'Bier block') as standard practice in OCTR. We therefore wondered what the optimal postoperative setting after OCTR under WALANT is. In this study, we compared patient satisfaction in two postoperative settings: immediate discharge (ID) after the operation, or short postoperative monitoring (PM) period in the outpatient clinic. Our hypothesis was that older patients would prefer a brief postoperative surveillance. We retrospectively analyzed patient satisfaction with the two settings using an adjusted questionnaire based on the standard Swiss grading system. We also assessed postoperative pain, satisfaction with the perioperative preparations and the reasons for unscheduled postoperative consultations, as secondary outcomes. One hundred and nine patients (ID, n = 63; PM, n = 46) were included in this single-center retrospective observational study. Patients were highly satisfied with both postoperative settings (Mean: ID 5.1/6; PM 5.5/6; p = 0.07). Even patients aged ≥80 years reported extremely high satisfaction with both settings (ID 5.6/6; PM 6.0/6; p = 0.08). Fifteen patients (ID, n = 11 [17.5%]; PM, n = 4 [8.7%], p = 0.72) unexpectedly consulted a doctor after surgery. OCTR under WALANT as an outpatient procedure with immediate discharge was associated with high patient satisfaction. However, detailed postoperative monitoring could contribute to the patient's well-being and education on how to cope with the postoperative course, and help with any questions.

[Relevance of Vascular Trauma in Trauma Care - Impact on Clinical Course and Mortality]. / Bedeutung des Gefäßtraumas für die Schwerverletztenversorgung ­ Einfluss auf Verlauf und Mortalität.

There is a lack of evidence as to the relevance of vascular trauma (VT) in patients with severe injuries. Therefore, we reviewed registry data in the present study in order to systematically objectify the effect of VT in these patients. This study aimed to provide an adequate picture of the relevance of vascular trauma and to identify adverse prognostic factors. In a retrospective analysis of records from the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) in two subgroups with moderate and severe VT, we examined the records for differences in terms of morbidity, mortality, follow-up and prognostic parameters compared to patients without VT with the same ISS. From a total of 42,326 patients, 2,961 (7 %) had a VT, and in 2,437 cases a severe VT (AIS ≥ 3) was diagnosed (5.8 %). In addition to a higher incidence of shock and a 2 to 3-fold increase in fluid replacement and erythrocyte transfusion, patients with severe VT had a 60 % higher rate of multiple organ failure, and in-hospital mortality was twice as high (33.8 %). The massively increased early mortality (8.0 vs. 25.2 %) clearly illustrates how severely injured patients are placed at risk by the presence of a relevant VT with a comparable ISS. In our opinion, due to an unexpected poor prognosis in the TR-DGU data for vascular injuries, increased attention is required in the care of severely injured patients. Based on our comprehensive analysis of negative prognostic factors, a further adjustment to the standards of vascular medicine could be advisable. The influence of the level of care provided by the admitting hospital and the relevance of a further hospital transfer to prognosis and clinical outcome is currently being analysed.