The prohibition against the use of local anesthetics with epinephrine for digital blocks or infiltration is an established surgical tradition. The present article provides a comprehensive review of all reported digital necrotic and ischemic complications with epinephrine in the digits in an effort to understand whether the current prohibition is based on documented reports. A comprehensive review of articles showing the successful use of local anesthetic with epinephrine in the digits is presented.A review of Index Medicus from 1880 to 1966 and a computer review of the National Library of Medicine database from 1966 to 2000 were performed using multiple keywords. Selected major textbooks from 1900 to 2000 were also reviewed.A total of 48 cases of digital gangrene after anesthetic blocks (mostly using cocaine or procaine) have been reported in the world literature. Only 21 cases involved the use of epinephrine; 17 involved an unknown concentration based on manual dilution. Multiple other concurrent conditions (hot soaks, tight tourniquets, and infection) existed in these case reports, making it difficult to determine the exact cause of the tissue insult. There have been no case reports of digital gangrene using commercial lidocaine with epinephrine (introduced in 1948). Multiple studies involving thousands of patients support the premise that the use of lidocaine with epinephrine is safe in the digits. An extensive literature review failed to provide consistent evidence that our current preparations of local anesthesia with epinephrine cause digital necrosis, although not all complications are necessarily reported. However, as with all techniques, caution is necessary to balance the risks of this technique with the dangers of mechanical tourniquets and upper extremity block anesthesia.

A comprehensive review of epinephrine in the finger: to do or not to do.

The spleen is an enigmatic organ with a peculiar anatomy and physiology. Though our understanding of this organ has improved vastly over the years, the spleen continues to produce problems for the surgeon, the hematologist, and the patient. The history of the spleen is full of fables and myths, but it is also full of realities. In the Talmud, the Midrash, and the writings of Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Galen, and several other giants of the past, one can find a lot of Delphian and Byzantine ambiguities. At that time, splenectomy was the art of surgery for many splenic diseases. From antiquity to the Renaissance, efforts were made to study the structure, functions, and anatomy of the spleen. Vesalius questioned Galen; and Malpighi, the founder of microscopic anatomy, gave a sound account of the histology and the physiologic destiny of the spleen. Surgical inquiry gradually became a focal point, yet it was still not clear what purpose the spleen served. It has been within the past 50 years that the most significant advances in the knowledge of the spleen and splenic surgery have been made. The work of Campos Christo in 1962 about the segmental anatomy of the spleen helped surgeons perform a partial splenectomy, thereby avoiding complications of postsplenectomy infection. With the recent successes of laparoscopic splenectomy in selected cases, the future of splenic surgery will undoubtedly bring many more changes.

Tribute to a triad: history of splenic anatomy, physiology, and surgery--part 1.

By the early 1900s it was widely accepted that the efforts of Wells, Bryant, Kaznelson, and Micheli necessitated a surgical appreciation of the pathophysiologic activities of the spleen. The respect bestowed on the diseased spleen, however, did not cohere to its healthy prototype. What else could explain Du Bois-Reymond’s telling statement of the late 1800s: “Now we come to the spleen, of it we know nothing. So much for the spleen” [1]. The essential question remained: “Este igitur splenatam necessarius?” The answer continued to be “no” well into the twentieth century. Despite Du Bois-Reymond’s sentiments, this resounding “no” did not indicate a lack of physiologic knowledge. Sir William Osler once commented, “Of the physiology of the spleen we know really very little.” To this, he quickly added, “That it is concerned with the process of blood scavenging; that it acts as a sort of warehouse for blood pigments; and that its structure in parts indicates hematopoiesis—these are about the only functions which are recognized” [2]. In 1928 William Mayo added his opinions on the topic while imparting an immunologic role to the spleen as well. He wrote:

Tribute to a triad: history of splenic anatomy, physiology, and surgery-part 2.

The high and rising costs of medical care in the United States (Bodenheimer 2005; Cutler, Rosen, and Vijan 2006), along with persistent regional variations in health services utilization (Fisher et al. 2003a, b; Wennberg 2010) have thrust to the fore the processes of medical decision making—particularly in regard to costly interventions with equivocal or poorly defined benefits—in efforts to restrain potentially wasteful medical spending (Neuman 2010). At the level of the doctor-patient encounter, efforts to increase the transparency of medical decisions and the extent to which treatment choices align with the preferences of individual patients have featured prominently in proposed policy strategies to control growth in medical spending. Such efforts are exemplified by shared decision-making strategies (Guadagnoli and Ward 1998) and tools such as structured decision aids, which seek to supplement discussions between clinicians and patients with information about the risks and benefits of treatment alternatives (Barry 2002; O’Connor, Llewellyn-Thomas, and Flood 2004; O’Connor et al. 2007).

Calls for the more widespread use of tools such as patient decision aids imply that the mechanics of everyday medical decision making are flawed. Such calls bespeak a desire for more standardization of the processes by which practitioners and patients communicate “information on options, outcomes, probabilities, and scientific uncertainties,” and “the personal value or importance [that patients] place on benefits versus harms” of specific treatments (O’Connor, Llewellyn-Thomas, and Flood 2004, 64). As a result, they frame current patterns of health care use and spending as symptomatic of failed communication between physicians and patients on a large scale and assume that reforming such communication will yield a better, more sustainable pattern of health care utilization.

While frequently acknowledging the uncertainties present in all medical choices, such efforts to improve the mechanics of medical decision making view the inputs to treatment choices, such as risks and benefits, as stably defined “outcomes and probabilities” waiting to be communicated (O’Connor, Llewellyn-Thomas, and Flood 2004). Yet in regard to the risks of medical treatments in particular, alternate viewpoints articulated over the last three decades have framed “risk” itself as a contingent, “collectively constructed” category and entity (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982; Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein 1980). From this standpoint, the selection and definition of risks at any given moment in time are subject to specific, largely unseen and unappreciated cultural assumptions and biases (Heyman, Henriksen, and Maughan 1998; Slovic 1999). As a result, the way in which “risk” is defined in current medical practice carries its own set of implications for the personal, professional, and policy discourse that determines which patients are thought to be appropriate candidates for costly medical interventions, how this information is communicated between physicians and patients, and how physicians and third-party payers agree on “routine indications” for a given treatment.

Past work in the sociology of medicine has shown that research and the evidence it produces are culturally shaped (De Vries and Lemmens 2006; De Vries, Lemmens, and Bosk 2008; Mol 2002). Nonetheless, the notion of risk as a subjective phenomenon challenges assumptions common to current medical thought and practice. For example, an excerpt from a recent textbook of surgery characterizes risk assessment as a straightforward, value-free exercise in measurement: “The aim of preoperative evaluation is … to identify and quantify comorbidity that may impact operative outcome” (Neumayer and Vargo 2008, 251–2). This text, like others in surgery, internal medicine, anesthesiology, and other disciplines, offers simple, statistically derived prediction rules to facilitate the process of risk quantification before surgery (Arozullah et al. 2000; Detsky et al. 1986; Goldman et al. 1977; Lee et al. 1999).


This conceptualization of operative risk assessment contrasts sharply with the understanding of risk assessment evident in similar textbooks from just over four decades ago: 

The assessment of operative risk should be approached as a statistical problem. … However, the statistical approach demands accurate data pertaining to the effects of many factors such as age, starvation, heart disease, etc. … upon the operative risk. These are practically nonexistent. … Obviously, because of these factors the accurate assessment of the operative risk for an individual case is impossible today. All we can do is guess. (Moyer 1970, 232)


Just how operative risk assessment changed from an enterprise perceived by physicians to be a matter of “guesswork” to one seen as a process of “quantification” represents an overlooked chapter in the history of medical thought. Past scholarship has demonstrated the emergence since the 1950s of the “risk factor” as a concept that has come to define the contemporary study, treatment, and experience of illness across a range of conditions by creating a status of being “at-risk” that coexists with states of “sick” and “well” (Aronowitz 1998, 2009; Rothstein 2003). Over this same period, an analogous terminology of risk factors also emerged in the context of decision making for surgical interventions. Drawing on analytic methods and concepts originating in epidemiologic studies of chronic disease, this new terminology came to be applied to, and in turn altered, the task of characterizing, categorizing, and making sense of the hazards of surgery.

To gain perspective on how surgery's hazards have been defined and redefined in medical thought, we examine in detail here changes over time in notions of risk related to operative care. Choices to undertake surgery all involve, to a greater or lesser degree, an acceptance of implicit procedural hazards, making physicians’ assessments of the dangers of treatment to an individual a central element of decision making surrounding surgical procedures (Bosk 1979). Accordingly, we studied writings from the years surrounding the 1977 publication of the first major statistical “risk factor” system focused on predicting a subset of adverse surgical outcomes, the Cardiac Risk Index (Goldman et al. 1977). We traced how the rapid appearance of this index in academic and clinical surgical writings, along with the development of similar statistical models to predict a range of other postoperative outcomes, offered physicians an increasingly standardized and statistically grounded way to assess the risks of surgery in individual patients. Taking the widespread acceptance of probabilistic statements regarding surgery's specific risks as a development to be explained rather than as a simple step forward for medical science (Berg 1995; Hacking 1990), we follow in this article Douglas and Wildavsky's admonition that “what needs to be explained is how people agree to ignore most of the potential dangers that surround them and interact so as to concentrate only on certain aspects” (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982, 9). We explain how the adoption of a new way of assessing the likelihood of a specific type of negative outcome—postoperative cardiac complications—implied a focus on certain dangers of surgery and the relative neglect of others while simultaneously obscuring the subjective nature of risk assessment itself. Further, we look at how such an approach to risk assessment created distinct challenges to cost-effective decision making by physicians and patients that remains beyond the reach of probabilistic rules, statistical guidelines, and applicable decision-making tools.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/23209089

What we talk about when we talk about risk: refining surgery's hazards in medical thought.

(1966) Experimented Studien Zur Prophylaxe Von Intraabdominalen Verwachsungen: Versuche an der Ratte mit einer Emulsion aus Lipid und Prednisolon Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica: Vol 45, No 4, pp 473-498

Experimented Studien Zur Prophylaxe Von Intraabdominalen Verwachsungen

A textbook of surgery by American authors

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Frederick Christopher

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

A textbook of surgery by American authors