To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Carpal tunnel release: pain lower with silicone ring tourniquet vs pneumatic tourniquet

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
August 2013

Carpal tunnel release: pain lower with silicone ring tourniquet vs pneumatic tourniquet

Vol: 2| Issue: 7| Number:76| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Silicone ring tourniquet versus pneumatic cuff tourniquet in carpal tunnel release: a randomized comparative study

J Orthop Traumatol. 2013 Jun;14(2):131-5. doi: 10.1007/s10195-012-0223-x. Epub 2013 Jan 30

Contributing Authors:
GI Drosos A Ververidis NI Stavropoulos R Mavropoulos G Tripsianis K Kazakos

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

50 patients undergoing carpal tunnel release were randomized to receive either a silicone ring tourniquet or pneumatic tourniquet during surgery, to compare the pain levels between patients of each group. After 30 days, no tourniquet-related complications or any wound infections were reported by any of the patients. Patients in the silicone ring tourniquet group experienced significantly less pain...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue