Does Pain Have a Role When It Comes to Tourniquet Training?

BACKGROUND: One of the greatest conundrums with tourniquet (TQ) education is the use of an appropriate surrogate of hemorrhage in the training setting to determine whether a TQ has been successfully used. At our facility, we currently use loss of audible Doppler signal or loss of palpable pulse to represent adequate occlusion of vasculature and thus successful TQ application. We set out to determine whether pain can be used to indicate successful TQ application in the training setting. METHODS: Three tourniquet systems (a pneumatic tourniquet, Combat Application Tourniquet® [C-A-T], and Stretch Wrap and Tuck Tourniquet™ [SWAT-T]) were used to occlude the arterial vasculature of the left upper arm (LUA), right upper arm (RUA), left forearm (LFA), right forearm (RFA), right thigh (RTH), and right calf (RCA) of 41 volunteers. A 4MHz, handheld Doppler ultrasound was used to confirm loss of Doppler signal (LOS) at the radial or posterior tibial artery to denote successful TQ application. Once successful placement of the TQ was noted, subjects rated their pain from 0 to 10 on the visual analog scale. In addition, the circumference of each limb, the pressure with the pneumatic TQ, number of twists with the C-A-T, and length of TQ used for the SWAT-T to obtain LOS was recorded. RESULTS: All 41 subjects had measurements at all anatomic sites with the pneumatic TQ, except one participant who was unable to complete the LUA. In total, pain was rated as 1 or less by 61% of subjects for LUA, 50% for LFA, 57.5% for RUA, 52.5% RFA, 15% for RTH, and 25% for RCA. Pain was rated 3 or 4 by 45% of subjects for RTH. For the C-A-T, data were collected from 40 participants. In total, pain was rated as 1 or less by 57.5% for the LUA, 70% for the LFA, 62.5% for the RUA, 75% for the RFA, 15% for the RTH, and 40% for the RCA. Pain was rated 3 or 4 by 42.5%. The SWAT-T group consisted of 37 participants for all anatomic locations. In total, pain was rated as 1 or less by 27% for LUA, 40.5% for the LFA, 27.0% for the RUA, 43.2 for the RFA, 18.9% for the RTH, and 16.2% for the RCA. Pain was rated 5 by 21.6% for RTH application, and 3 or 4 by 35%. CONCLUSION: The unexpected low pain values recorded when loss of signal was reached make the use of pain too sensitive as an indicator to confirm adequate occlusion of vasculature and, thus, successful TQ application.

Advanced adenoma detection rate is independent of nonadvanced adenoma detection rate.

OBJECTIVES: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the accepted rate marker in colonoscopy quality. Advanced adenomas detected at index colonoscopy, while less frequent than nonadvanced adenomas, carry greater risk for future advanced neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy. This study aimed to determine the effect of the colonoscopist and other factors on advanced ADR and to define the correlation of advanced and nonadvanced ADRs among colonoscopists. METHODS: An observational study of a cohort of patients undergoing first-time colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy was conducted. Patient characteristics and colonoscopic findings were collected. Adenoma, advanced adenoma, and nonadvanced ADRs were calculated. Logistic regression was used to determine variable effects on advanced adenoma detection, and Spearman's rank-order correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between advanced and nonadvanced ADRs. RESULTS: A total of 1,944 patients had first-time screening colonoscopies by 14 colonoscopists. All colonoscopists had adequate (>20%) ADRs. The variability in the colonoscopist ranges of detection was 22.22 to 44.66% for adenomas and 2.00 to 18.18% for advanced adenomas. Logistic regression showed that increasing patient age (odds ratio (OR) 1.16 per 5-year increase, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.28, P=0.008) and male gender (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.51-3.06, P<0.0001) were variables associated with advanced adenoma detection. Colonoscopists were significantly different in detecting advanced adenomas by random effects model (P=0.002), adjusting for patient age, gender, race, year of colonoscopy, gastroenterology fellow participation during colonoscopy, and nonadvanced adenomas. Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient of -0.42 (95% CI -0.77 to 0.14, P=0.13) was not significant and showed no correlation between advanced and nonadvanced adenoma detection by the group of colonoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced ADR is variable among colonoscopists with acceptable ADRs. Colonoscopists' advanced ADRs are independent of their nonadvanced ADRs.