Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Legal
      • Operations
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Compensation Reports
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • By the Numbers
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • mTBI Resource Center
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • Issue Archives
  • Archives
    • Brief19
    • Coding Wizard
    • Images in EM
    • Care Team
    • Quality & Safety
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Reader Responds: Safer Methods for Isolated Digital Procedures

By William Green, MD, FACEP | on July 5, 2026 | 0 Comment
Break Room Opinion
Share:  Print-Friendly Version
Break Room

I read with interest the article “Extensor Tendon Repair by Emergency Physicians” by Erin Dooley, MD, and J. Michael Smith, MD, in ACEP Now in March 2026 and found it to be a helpful review of extensor tendon lacerations/repair. However, the article recommends the use of a forearm blood pressure cuff to achieve hemostasis during single-digit extensor tendon repair. While this approach is effective, it may not represent the safest and most physiologically targeted method for isolated digital procedures. 

You Might Also Like
  • Emergency Department Management of Extensor Tendon Lacerations
  • Extensor Tendon Repair by Emergency Physicians
  • How to Perform Ultrasound-Guided Forearm Nerve Blocks to Provide Non-Drug Pain Relief for Acute Injuries
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: July 2026

The hand surgery and emergency medicine literature consistently emphasizes that [physicians] should always use the lowest effective pressure over the smallest necessary anatomic region to achieve a bloodless field.1,2 In the case of single-digit repair, forearm tourniquets—whether pneumatic or improvised—create ischemia in tissues not involved in the procedure, including intrinsic hand muscles and forearm compartments. This broader ischemic exposure introduces avoidable risks, including nerve compression, muscle ischemia, and patient discomfort, without clear procedural advantage in limited-field cases. 

Digital tourniquets, by contrast, are widely used for isolated finger procedures and provide localized hemostasis at substantially lower occlusion pressures. Their use aligns more closely with the principles of minimizing tissue ischemia and pressure related neurovascular injuries. The literature appropriately warns of the highly variable and commonly excessive pressures applied by makeshift digit tourniquets, while also highlighting the importance of proper technique, time awareness, and
reliable removal protocols to mitigate the well-described risks of digital tourniquets.3  

For single-digit procedures, consideration should be given to digit-specific hemostatic methods that minimize pressure and confine ischemia to the operative field, reserving proximal limb tourniquets for cases requiring broader exposure. 

Disclosure: The author is the inventor of the T-RING digital tourniquet device. 

References

  1. Wakai A, Winter DC, Street JT, Redmond PH. Pneumatic Tourniquets in Extremity Surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001; 9(5):345‐351.
  2. Tuncali B, Karci A, Tuncali BE, et al. A New Method for Estimating Arterial Occlusion Pressure in Optimizing Pneumatic Tourniquet Inflation Pressure. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:1752-1757.
  3. Lahham S, Tu K, Ni M, et al. Comparison of Pressures Applied by Digital Tourniquets in the Emergency Department. West J Emerg Med. 2011; 12(2):242-249.

Topics: digital tourniquetExtensor Tendon LacerationsHand InjuryLacerationNerveProcedureTourniquet

Related

  • Extensor Tendon Repair by Emergency Physicians

    March 10, 2026 - 2 Comments
  • Emergency Department Management of Prehospital Tourniquets

    October 1, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Trauma First Aid at the 2025 Boston Marathon

    September 22, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: July 2026

Download PDF

Read More

No Responses to “Reader Responds: Safer Methods for Isolated Digital Procedures”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*





Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2026 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603