RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Military doctors usually deal with hand wound management. Their practice sometimes takes them far from any specialized surgical center. The WALANT could be a powerful tool for doctors operating in nuclear submarines or as part of special forces. This is a comparative, prospective and multicenter study. The hypothesis was that the management of hand wounds by military doctors specifically trained in WALANT and in the surgical exploration of hand wounds allowed a diagnosis as effective as in the FESUM center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Military doctors, usually operating in isolated conditions, were trained at WALANT. Then, this method was used for the exploration of hand wounds in the emergency room, in a center outside FESUM. At the end, two different questionnaires were completed respectively by the patient and the operator. They aimed to assess various criteria such as the overall satisfaction of the patient and the operator, the level of pain felt or the ability of the operator to establish a precise lesion assessment. The results were compared with those obtained under the same conditions by hand surgeons in the FESUM centre. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the two centers in terms of diagnostic capacity, satisfaction, comfort and perceived pain intensity. DISCUSSION: Under cover of prior training, the WALANT is effective for the exploration of hand wounds by submariner doctors and members of the special forces. Its use makes it possible to establish a precise injury report and this in material and human conditions approaching as closely as possible those of the armed forces on mission. The comfort of the patient remains preserved. CONCLUSION: The WALANT represents an effective tool for the exploration and lesion assessment of hand wounds outside the FESUM centre. Since emergency conditions are similar to those encountered in operational conditions, its use is also possible in situations specific to military doctors: nuclear submarines, special forces on mission. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; comparative study, retrospective, multicentre.