Intentional foreign object ingestions: need for endoscopy and surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intentional ingestion of foreign objects (IIFO) is common in the incarcerated population. This study was undertaken in order to better define clinical patterns of IIFO among prisoners. We sought to determine factors associated with the need for endoscopic and surgical therapy for IIFO. METHODS: After obtaining permission to conduct IIFO research in incarcerated populations, study patients were identified by ICD-9 codes. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics; past medical history; IIFO characteristics; and diagnostic, endoscopic, and surgical findings. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using statistical software. RESULTS: Thirty patients with 141 episodes of IIFO were identified. The mean number of ingested items per episode was 4.60. Endoscopy was performed in 97 of 141 IIFO instances, with failure to retrieve the ingested object in 21 of 97 cases (22%). Eleven instances (7.8%) required surgical intervention. On multivariate analyses, hospital admission was associated with elevated white blood cell count (odds ratio [OR] 1.4, P < 0.05) and number of items ingested (OR 1.3, P < 0.05). The need for endoscopy was independently associated with ingestion of multiple objects (OR 3.3, P < 0.05) and elevated white blood cell count (OR 1.3, P < 0.05). Surgical therapy was significantly associated with elevated white blood cell count (OR 1.6, P < 0.01) and with increasing number of ingested items (OR 1.07 per item, P < 0.05). Endoscopy is associated with significantly lower odds of surgery (OR 0.13, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Intentional ingestion of foreign objects continues to pose a significant human and economic burden. The need for admission or therapy is frequently associated with leukocytosis. Further investigation is warranted into resource-appropriate triage of patients who present with IIFO.

Regional anesthesia techniques for the lower extremity.

This article focuses on regional anesthesia for orthopedic procedures of the lower extremity.

Comparison of effects of lidocaine hydrochloride, buffered lidocaine, diphenhydramine, and normal saline after intradermal injection.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pain and the spread of analgesia when local anesthetics are given as an intradermal injection into the dorsal aspect of the hand. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: 40 consenting adult volunteers. INTERVENTIONS: Volunteers were randomly assigned to receive a 0.25-mL injection of either lidocaine hydrochloride (1%), buffered lidocaine, diphenhydramine (1%), or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) into the dorsal aspect of both hands. MEASUREMENTS: The volunteers used a visual analog scale to compare the pain of needle insertion and solution injection. Then at 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 30 minutes after intradermal injection, the extent of the analgesic area was marked on a strip of tape placed horizontally across the hand. Then at 32 minutes after intradermal injection, the extent of the analgesic area was marked on a strip of tape placed vertically across the hand. The volunteers were called each day and asked the duration of their numbness or hyperesthesia until their hands were no longer numb or sore. MAIN RESULTS: Buffered lidocaine during intradermal infiltration was found to be significantly (p < 0.05) less painful than either lidocaine hydrochloride or diphenhydramine and equivalent to placebo. Diphenhydramine and lidocaine hydrochloride during intradermal infiltration induced significantly (p < 0.05) more pain than buffered lidocaine or placebo. Lidocaine hydrochloride displayed a significantly (p < 0.05) larger diameter of analgesia than placebo by 1 minute after the injection, buffered lidocaine by 2 minutes after injection, and diphenhydramine by 5 minutes after injection. By 20 minutes after injection, diphenhydramine diameter of analgesia was significantly (p < 0.05) larger than placebo but significantly less than buffered lidocaine. By 30 minutes after injection, diphenhydramine diameter of analgesia was equivalent to placebo whereas buffered lidocaine and lidocaine diameters were still significantly (p < 0.05) larger than placebo. Diphenhydramine injection resulted in numbness that lasted significantly (p < 0.05) longer than other study solutions whereas buffered lidocaine and lidocaine injections resulted in numbness that lasted significantly longer than placebo. Diphenhydramine injection resulted in hyperesthesia that lasted for 2 or more days in 12 of the volunteers. CONCLUSION: There is a reduction of infiltration pain using buffered lidocaine as opposed to lidocaine and diphenhydramine. Although lidocaine injection resulted in a slightly faster spread of analgesic diameter, buffered lidocaine was equivalent to lidocaine from minute 2 until minute 30. Therefore, to obtain optimal anesthetic conditions, we recommend that buffered lidocaine be given 2 minutes before performing catheterization, whereas diphenhydramine should be given 5 minutes before catheterization, but only when buffered lidocaine cannot be used.

Anesthesia for foot and ankle surgery.

Regional anesthesia (RA) is the anesthetic of choice for all foot and ankle surgery. Advances in anesthetic equipment and techniques have made peripheral nerve blocks the perfect anesthetic technique for these patients, who should be educated about them in their surgeon's office. The anesthetic alternative of choice is, in the authors' opinion, a neuraxial (i.e. spinal or subarachnoid) technique, rather than a general anesthesia (GA). GA has a higher morbidity and complication rate compared to RA. Performance of a peripheral nerve block, or PNB, requires proper training, equipment, and support personnel in order to handle any and all complications, including general anesthesia.