| Evaluation of the Esmark bandage as a tourniquet for forefoot surgery. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 15215024 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
PURPOSE: Although used routinely as a tourniquet in forefoot surgery, the pressure under an Esmark bandage has had little evaluation, and its use has been discouraged by some. The purpose of this study was to quantitate the pressure generated by an elastic bandage in a clinical setting and compare several different types of commercially available Esmark bandages. METHODS: Five foot and ankle fellowship program directors and five foot and ankle fellowship trained surgeons comprised the volunteer group which performed clinical simulations with a 6-inch Esmark bandage at the ankle level. Variables were then added, including different padding, a change in the position of the surgeon, and a 4-inch Esmark bandage. A questionnaire on their use of an elastic bandage in practice was also administered. Differences in pressure between different types of available 6-inch Esmark bandages were also compared. Pressure measurements were recorded by a pressure monitor device. RESULTS: The average pressure of the 10 surgeons' trials for three wraps with a tuck was 222 mm Hg (range, 146-319 mm Hg); four wraps with a tuck averaged 288 mm Hg (range, 202-405 mm Hg). No significant difference was seen between the standard technique and when the surgeon stood (three wraps and a tuck, p =.26; four wraps and a tuck, p =.33), when cast padding was used (three wraps and a tuck, p =.62; four wraps and a tuck, p =.74), or a 4-inch Esmark bandage (three wraps and a tuck, p >.99; four wraps and a tuck, p =.34). There was a significant decrease in the pressure when a blue towel was used as padding (three wraps and a tuck, p =.05; four wraps and a tuck, p =.04). Pressures obtained by the 10 different volunteers were uniform with little variation (three wraps and a tuck = 222 +/- 61 mm Hg; four wraps and a tuck = 288 +/- 68 mm Hg). No significant difference was seen between the different types of 6-inch Esmark bandages (p >.05). The combined complication rate for the 10 surgeons is estimated to be less than 0.1%. CONCLUSION: The practice of using a 6-inch Esmark bandage as a tourniquet at the ankle level for forefoot procedures is a safe and reliable method. Although pressures between surgeons vary, the average pressure is in an effective yet safe range. Recommendations for the application of the Esmark bandage as a tourniquet are given. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Brett R Grebing; Michael J Coughlin |
Related Documents
:
|
15626984 - Effect of vertebral shell on injection pressure and intravertebral pressure in vertebro... 9362584 - The pressure sore status tool a few thousand assessments later. 11933414 - The physics of sub-bandage pressure measurement. 3408174 - Intraoperative testing of the integrity of left-sided colorectal anastomoses: a techniq... 3604894 - Increased right ventricular afterload alters left ventricular function in newborn lambs. 17130344 - Ethnic and gender differences in ambulatory blood pressure trajectories: results from a... |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Clinical Trial; Comparative Study; Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Foot & ankle international. / American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society [and] Swiss Foot and Ankle Society Volume: 25 ISSN: 1071-1007 ISO Abbreviation: Foot Ankle Int Publication Date: 2004 Jun |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2004-06-24 Completed Date: 2004-09-14 Revised Date: 2013-02-25 |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 9433869 Medline TA: Foot Ankle Int Country: United States |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 397-405 Citation Subset: IM |
Affiliation:
|
Orthopaedic Surgery, Belleville, IL 83706, USA. |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
Ankle Bandages* / adverse effects Elasticity Forefoot, Human / physiopathology, surgery* Humans Orthopedic Equipment* / adverse effects Pressure Tourniquets* / adverse effects |
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Relationship between static mobility of the first ray and first ray, midfoot, and hindfoot motion du...
Next Document: The efficacy of two methods of ankle immobilization in reducing gastrocnemius, soleus, and peroneal ...