Evidenced-based local anaesthesia—is there a difference in practice between specialties in a major trauma centre?

BACKGROUND: Local anaesthesia (LA) is used widely in several clinical scenarios in hospital practice. A number of minor trauma wounds are treated under LA at the North Bristol Trust, and on most occasions, these patients are admitted to the emergency department (ED) and treated there. On other occasions, more complex wounds may be treated by the plastic surgery team. The aim of this study is to compare the preferences of LA agents between these departments in cases of minor trauma. The authors also present a narrative review of the literature and determine best practice. METHODS: A single-centre clinical practice survey was developed and distributed to both departments which involved two case scenarios, one involving a head injury to the occiput (scenario 1) and one nailed repair (scenario 2) both requiring treatment under LA. RESULTS: In both scenarios ED favoured lidocaine (89%) whereas the plastic surgery team preferred to mix solutions. In scenario 1, 89% of ED participants chose lidocaine 1%, but only 38% of the plastic surgery team chose it. Forty-two percent of ED chose to use adrenaline but 100% plastic surgery team chose it. Both teams refrained from using adrenaline in digits, but 23% of the plastic surgery team chose it. Eighty-four percent of ED chose 25G needles, and the plastic surgery team’s choices varied. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown marked differences in the use of LA between two specialties in a major trauma centre. There is good quality evidence to support the safety of adrenaline use in digits with the addition of sodium bicarbonate to decrease the pain inflicted to the patient upon infiltration of LA. This study serves to raise awareness of the surgical dogma around adrenaline use and provide clinicians with an evidence-based guide to managing minor trauma with LA. Level of evidence: Not ratable.