Background: This study aims to compare the use of one-per-mil tumescent solution (a mixture of epinephrine and 0.2% lidocaine in a ratio of 1:1,000,000 in normal saline solution) and tourniquet to create clear operative fields and to evaluate the functional outcomes after post burn hand contracture surgery. Methods: The subjects of this randomized controlled trial were divided into one-permil tumescent technique and tourniquet group for a similar surgical procedure. Three independent assessors evaluated the clarity of the operative fields through recorded videos for the first 15 min and the first 10-minute of each hour of the surgery. Functional outcome was evaluated at least three months postoperatively using total active and passive motion (TAM and TPM) of each digit. Malondialdehyde (MDA) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) were tested during baseline (5 min before the procedures), ischemia phase, and reperfusion phase (a phase when the blood flow returned to the tissue). Results: 35 subjects were included in this study: 17 in the tumescent group and 18 in the tourniquet group. We found a significant difference in the clarity of operative field between tumescent and tourniquet groups, 5 vs 35 bloodless operative fields, respectively (p < 0.05). TAM and TPM of each digit before surgery and 3 months postoperatively showed no significant difference between both groups (p > 0.05). Furthermore, we found no difference in MDA and TNF-α levels between both groups at their respective phases. Conclusions: The use of one-per-mil tumescent technique does not replace tourniquet use to create bloodless operative fields in burned hand contracture surgery. However, the postoperative functional results were similar in both groups showing that tumescent technique can be used as an alternative to tourniquet without compromising outcomes. The MDA and TNF-α examinations do not provide conclusive outcomes regarding ischemia and reperfusion injury.
- Hemostatic technique