Syringe size: does it matter in physician-performed procedures?

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that the size of syringe influenced needle control in physician-performed procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Operators were tested for their ability to control a 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 20-mL syringe and equivalent sizes of the new safety device, the reciprocating procedure device (RPD), using the quantitative needle-based displacement method. Three hundred twenty clinical syringe procedures were then randomized to either a 3- or 10-mL conventional syringe or to a 3- or 10-mL RPD. Patient pain was measured with the Visual Analog Pain Scale (VAPS). RESULTS: Increasing syringe size was associated with the undesirable characteristic of unintended forward penetration (loss of control of the needle in the forward direction) (r(2) = 0.97, slope = 2.14, 95% CI: 1.54-2.76, P < 0.002), and unintended retraction (loss of control of the needle in the reverse direction) (r(2) = 0.97, slope 2.15, 95% CI: 1.54-2.76, P < 0.002). In addition, 2-handed operation of a syringe resulted in greater control than 1-handed operation of a syringe (P < 0.001). When 1-handed operation was required, the RPD control syringe reduced unintended penetration by 52.3% (P >or= 0.001), unintended retraction by 56.8% (P >or= 0.001), and patient pain by 54.7% (P >or= 0.001) at each device size. CONCLUSIONS: For greater safety and control when operating the conventional syringe, smaller syringe sizes and 2 hands instead of 1 hand should be used whenever possible. If 1-handed operation of a syringe is necessary, a safety technology like the RPD control syringe should be used.

Integration of safety technologies into rheumatology and orthopedics practices: a randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and integrate new safety technologies into outpatient musculoskeletal procedures and measure the effect on outcome, including pain. METHODS: Using national resources for patient safety and literature review, the following safety technologies were identified: a safety needle to reduce inadvertent needlesticks to heath care workers, and the reciprocating procedure device (RPD) to improve patient safety and reduce pain. Five hundred sixty-six musculoskeletal procedures involving syringes and needles were randomized to either an RPD group or a conventional syringe group, and pain, quality, safety, and physician acceptance were measured. RESULTS: During 566 procedures, no accidental needlesticks occurred with safety needles. Use of the RPD resulted in a 35.4% reduction (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 24-46%) in patient-assessed pain (mean +/- SD scores on a visual analog pain scale [VAPS] 3.12 +/- 2.23 for the RPD and 4.83 +/- 3.22 for the conventional syringe; P < 0.001) and a 49.5% reduction (95% CI 34-64%) in patient-assessed significant pain (VAPS score > or =5) (P < 0.001). Physician acceptance of the RPD combined with a safety needle was excellent. CONCLUSION: As mandated by the Joint Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, safety technologies and the use of pain scales can be successfully integrated into rheumatologic and orthopedic procedures. The combination of a safety needle to reduce needlestick injuries to health care workers and the RPD to improve safety and outcome of patients is effective and well accepted by physicians.

Patient pain and tissue trauma during syringe procedures: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship of needle control to tissue trauma and hemorrhage during syringe procedures. METHODS: Forty-seven subjects with a palpable knee effusion underwent needle and syringe aspiration. Subjects were randomized to the conventional syringe or a safety technology, the reciprocating procedure device (RPD). This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov. Pain was measured with the Visual Analog Pain Scale (VAPS). Cell count, crystal examination, culture, and aspirated fluid volume were determined. Red blood cell (RBC) counts were used to measure blood in aspirated fluid. RESULTS: Patient pain during the syringe procedure significantly predicted blood (RBC) in aspirated fluid (r = 0. 53, p = 0.001). When compared to the conventional syringe, the RPD safety device reduced blood in aspirated fluid by 66.7% (RBC, 10(3)/ml: RPD 8.9 +/- 11.4; syringe 26.7 +/- 90.2; p 0.01), reduced patient pain by 73.9% (VAPS: RPD 1.68 +/- 2.34; syringe 6.44 +/- 2.86; p < 0.01), and improved fluid aspirate yield by 132% (aspirate volume: RPD 20.9 +/- 19.7 ml; syringe 9.00 +/- 6.58 ml; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Inadequate control of needle and syringe during physician-performed syringe procedures is an important cause of trauma to patient tissues resulting in hemorrhage, increased patient pain, and decreased aspirate yield. The RPD -- a safety device that improves needle control and decreases needle trauma to tissues -- reduces hemorrhage and improves the safety, outcome, and aspirate yield of physician-performed syringe procedures.