Ultrasound-Guided Radial Artery Catheterization and the Modified Allen's Test

Evidence-based Comprehensive Approach to Forearm Arterial Laceration

INTRODUCTION

Penetrating injury to the forearm may cause an isolated radial or ulnar artery injury, or a complex injury involving other structures including veins, tendons and nerves. The management of forearm laceration with arterial injury involves both operative and nonoperative strategies. An evolution in management has emerged especially at urban trauma centers, where the multidisciplinary resource of trauma and hand subspecialties may invoke controversy pertaining to the optimal management of such injuries. The objective of this review was to provide an evidence-based, systematic, operative and nonoperative approach to the management of isolated and complex forearm lacerations. A comprehensive search of MedLine, Cochrane Library, Embase and the National Guideline Clearinghouse did not yield evidence-based management guidelines for forearm arterial laceration injury. No professional or societal consensus guidelines or best practice guidelines exist to our knowledge.

DISCUSSION

The optimal methods for achieving hemostasis are by a combination approach utilizing direct digital pressure, temporary tourniquet pressure, compressive dressings followed by wound closure. While surgical hemostasis may provide an expedited route for control of hemorrhage, this aggressive approach is often not needed (with a few exceptions) to achieve hemostasis for most forearm lacerations. Conservative methods mentioned above will attain the same result. Further, routine emergent or urgent operative exploration of forearm laceration injuries are not warranted and not cost-beneficial. It has been widely accepted with ample evidence in the literature that neither injury to forearm artery, nerve or tendon requires immediate surgical repair. Attention should be directed instead to control of bleeding, and perform a complete physical examination of the hand to document the presence or absence of other associated injuries. Critical ischemia will require expeditious surgical restoration of arterial perfusion. In a well-perfused hand, however, the presence of one intact artery is adequate to sustain viability without long-term functional disability, provided the palmar arch circulation is intact. Early consultation with a hand specialist should be pursued, and follow-up arrangement made for delayed primary repair in cases of complex injury.

CONCLUSION

Management in accordance with well-established clinical principles will maximize treatment efficacy and functional outcome while minimizing the cost of medical care.

Efficacy of ultrasound-guided radial artery catheterization: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Ultrasound guidance has emerged as an adjunct for central vein catheterization in both adults and children. However, the use of ultrasound guidance for radial arterial catheterization has not been well established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound guidance for radial artery catheterization.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound guidance with other techniques (palpation or Doppler) in adult or pediatric patients requiring radial artery catheterization were included. The primary outcome was first-attempt success.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs enrolling 546 patients met the inclusion criteria, and all the selected trials were considered as at high risk of bias. Ultrasound-guided radial artery catheterization was associated with an increased first-attempt success (relative risk (RR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.35). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 74%). Ultrasound-guided radial artery catheterization in small children and infants also provided an increased chance for first-attempt success (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.88). Ultrasound guidance further significantly reduced mean attempts to success (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.13, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.69), mean time to success (WMD -72.97 seconds, 95% CI -134.41 to -11.52), and incidence of the complication of hematoma (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound guidance is an effective and safe technique for radial artery catheterization, even in small children and infants. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the heterogeneity among the studies.

Ultrasonography-guided radial artery catheterization is superior compared with the traditional palpation technique: a prospective, randomized, blinded, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Radial artery catheterization is gaining popularity for diagnostic and interventional procedures. Palpation technique is widely used for the procedure, but ultrasonography has been shown to increase catheterization success. A recently described ultrasonography technique is termed 'dynamic needle tip positioning'. We aimed to compare the traditional palpation technique and dynamic needle tip positioning technique in regard to clinically relevant end points.

METHODS

The study was conducted as a randomized, patient-blinded, crossover study. Patients underwent bilateral radial artery catheterization using both techniques. The primary end point of the study was needle manipulation time. Additional end points were (1) the number of skin perforations, (2) the number of attempts targeting the vessel, (3) the number of catheters placed in first attempt and (4) the number of catheters used.

RESULTS

Forty patients were analyzed. There was no significant difference in median needle manipulation time [32 s (range 11-96 s) vs. 39 s (range 9-575 s), P = 0.525], although the variance was lower in the dynamic needle tip positioning group (P < 0.001). In the traditional palpation technique group, a higher number of skin perforations (57 vs. 40, P = 0.003), catheters (46 vs. 40, P = 0.025) and attempts targeting the vessel (104 vs. 43, P < 0.001) were necessary compared with the ultrasonography dynamic needle tip positioning group. First attempt success rate was significantly higher in the ultrasonography dynamic needle tip positioning group (23/40 vs. 38/40, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonography guidance using the dynamic needle tip positioning technique for radial artery catheterization significantly improves clinically relevant aspects of the procedure.