CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00130104Updated Oct 5, 2007

Transthecal Metacarpal Block Versus Traditional Digital Block for Painful Finger Procedures in Children

A Phase 4 interventional study of Transthecal Metacarpal Block in Finger Injuries, sponsored by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged Up to 18 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2007-10-05.

Sponsored by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia · Phase 4, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
92
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
Up to 18 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to determine if the transthecal metacarpal block is superior to the traditional digital block for regional digital anesthesia in children.

Read the detailed description

Background: Finger injuries and infections are common presenting problems in the pediatric emergency department. A traditional digital block, requiring at least two injections of anesthetic, is the traditional method of regional anesthesia for many finger procedures. Digital blocks can sometimes be difficult to administer and assess for effectiveness especially in children. A newer procedure, the transthecal metacarpal block, may be easier to administer, and more effective with one injection.

Objective: To determine if the transthecal metacarpal block (MCB) provides superior digit anesthesia in children requiring painful finger procedures as compared to the traditional digital block (TDB).

Methods: A randomized clinical trial comparing the MCB to the TDB will be conducted in an urban, tertiary care pediatric emergency department. Children \<18 years of age, presenting to the emergency department with a finger injury or infection, which requires regional anesthesia for repair will be screened for eligibility. Eligible patients, with appropriate consent will be randomized to receive either the MCB or TDB with 1% Lidocaine. The primary outcome, success of the block will be assessed using pinprick testing after a standardized wait time. Secondary outcomes including pain with the block and repair, repairing physician satisfaction, and short-term complications will also be assessed.

Implications: Finding successful methods of anesthesia and pain control are paramount in the pediatric emergency department. In addition, using a type of digital block which is easy to administer, successful, and requires only one injection would give physicians confidence to treat finger injuries in children with regional anesthesia and possibly avoid procedural sedation in some cases. To date, no studies have been published on the efficacy of digital blocks in children. This study will also serve to give baseline success rates for both types of digital blocks.

02

Conditions studied

  • Finger Injuries

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • digital block
  • regional anesthesia
  • finger repair
  • Fingers
  • Anesthesia, Conduction
03

In context

Finger Injuries

23 studies on the registry are indexed under Finger Injuries; 3 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 92 is above the median of 60 across 18 interventional studies indexed under Finger Injuries.

Browse Finger Injuries studies →

Lead sponsor

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is the lead sponsor of 480 studies on the registry; 85 are open to participants now.

Of its 28 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 22 (79%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Up to 18 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Age \<18 years
  • Greater than 10 kg in weight
  • Have finger injuries or infections that will require digital regional anesthesia
  • Require only local anesthesia for the repair
  • English speaking

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Have previous participation in this study
  • Need procedural sedation at the onset of the repair
  • Have allergy to lidocaine or amide-type local anesthetics
  • Have infection at the sites of block injection
  • Have known coagulopathy
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
92 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    MCB

    randomized to receive the metacarpal block for anesthesia

    Procedure: Transthecal Metacarpal Block

Interventions

  • ProcedureTransthecal Metacarpal Block
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Success of the two types of digital blocks

    Time frame: immediate

Secondary outcomes

  1. Pain experienced with the digital block

    Time frame: immediate

  2. Repairing physician satisfaction with the procedure

    Time frame: immediate

  3. complications associated with digital block

    Time frame: 30 days

07

Study locations

1 site
  • The Children's Hospital Of Philadelphia Emergency Department
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Bhende MS, Dandrea LA, Davis HW. Hand injuries in children presenting to a pediatric emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Oct;22(10):1519-23. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)81251-x. PubMed 8214828 ↗
  • Kelly JJ, Spektor M. Nerve Blocks of the Thorax and Extremities. In:Roberts J, Hedges J, eds. Clinical Procedures in Emergency Medicine. St. Louis: WB Saunders, 2004.
  • Robson AK, Bloom PA. Suturing of digital lacerations: digital block or local infiltration? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1990 Nov;72(6):360-1. PubMed 2241053 ↗
  • Flarity-Reed K. Methods of digital block. J Emerg Nurs. 2002 Aug;28(4):351-4. doi: 10.1067/men.2002.125539. No abstract available. PubMed 12122413 ↗
  • Chiu DT. Transthecal digital block: flexor tendon sheath used for anesthetic infusion. J Hand Surg Am. 1990 May;15(3):471-7. doi: 10.1016/0363-5023(90)90063-w. PubMed 2348068 ↗
  • Brutus JP, Baeten Y, Chahidi N, Kinnen L, Ledoux P, Moermans JP. Single injection digital block: comparison between three techniques. Chir Main. 2002 May;21(3):182-7. doi: 10.1016/s1297-3203(02)00107-5. PubMed 12116830 ↗
  • Cummings AJ, Tisol WB, Meyer LE. Modified transthecal digital block versus traditional digital block for anesthesia of the finger. J Hand Surg Am. 2004 Jan;29(1):44-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2003.09.018. PubMed 14751102 ↗
  • Low CK, Vartany A, Engstrom JW, Poncelet A, Diao E. Comparison of transthecal and subcutaneous single-injection digital block techniques. J Hand Surg Am. 1997 Sep;22(5):901-5. doi: 10.1016/S0363-5023(97)80088-3. PubMed 9330152 ↗
  • Morrison WG. Transthecal digital block. Arch Emerg Med. 1993 Mar;10(1):35-8. doi: 10.1136/emj.10.1.35. PubMed 8452611 ↗
  • Torok PJ, Flinn SD, Shin AY. Transthecal digital block at the proximal phalanx. J Hand Surg Br. 2001 Feb;26(1):69-71. doi: 10.1054/jhsb.2000.0519. PubMed 11162023 ↗
  • Hill RG Jr, Patterson JW, Parker JC, Bauer J, Wright E, Heller MB. Comparison of transthecal digital block and traditional digital block for anesthesia of the finger. Ann Emerg Med. 1995 May;25(5):604-7. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(95)70171-0. PubMed 7741335 ↗
  • Hollander JE, Valentine SM, Brogan GX Jr. Academic associate program: integrating clinical emergency medicine research with undergraduate education. Acad Emerg Med. 1997 Mar;4(3):225-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1997.tb03747.x. PubMed 9063553 ↗
  • Castellanos J, Ramirez C, De Sena L, Bertran C. Transthecal digital block: digital anaesthesia through the sheath of the flexor tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Aug;82(6):889. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.82b6.10430. PubMed 10990318 ↗
  • Lewis L, Stephan M. Local and Regional Anesthesia. In: Henretig F, King C, eds. Pediatric Emergency Procedures. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1997.
  • Carlson D, et al. Illustrated Techniques of Pediatric Emergency Procedures. In: Fleisher G, Ludwig S, eds. Pediatric Emergency Medicine. Philadelphia: Williams and Wilkins, 2000.
  • Antevy PM, Zuckerbraun NS, Saladino RA, Pitetti RD. Evaluation of a transthecal digital nerve block in the injured pediatric patient. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2010 Mar;26(3):177-80. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3181d1dfaf. PubMed 20179662 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 5, 2007, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00130104
Lead sponsor
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Collaborators
University of Pennsylvania
First posted
Aug 15, 2005
Start date
Jul 2005
Completion
Aug 2007
Last update
Oct 5, 2007

Study contacts

Elizabeth R Alpern, MD, MSCE
principal investigator · The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Division of Emergency Medicine

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2005. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion