INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to compare a new silicone ring tourniquet (SRT) with a classic pneumatic cuff tourniquet (PT) in terms of tolerance and recovery time following their use in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Both tourniquets were applied in the arm and thigh of 15 healthy unmedicated volunteers. PT pressure was kept at 100 mmHg above the systolic blood pressure. The appropriate model of the SRT was used according to the systolic blood pressure. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale and arterial blood pressure, pulse rate and oxygen saturation were monitored in all volunteers. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in tolerance time between SRT and PT in the arm (19.13 vs. 18.25 min) and thigh (21.52 vs. 21.39 min) nor in recovery time between the two devices. CONCLUSION: The SRT performed similarly to the classic PT in terms of tolerance and recovery time when applied in the arm and thigh of unmedicated healthy volunteers.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to compare a new silicone ring tourniquet (SRT) with a classic pneumatic cuff tourniquet (PT) in terms of tolerance and recovery time following their use in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Both tourniquets were applied in the arm and thigh of 15 healthy unmedicated volunteers. PT pressure was kept at 100 mmHg above the systolic blood pressure. The appropriate model of the SRT was used according to the systolic blood pressure. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale and arterial blood pressure, pulse rate and oxygen saturation were monitored in all volunteers. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in tolerance time between SRT and PT in the arm (19.13 vs. 18.25 min) and thigh (21.52 vs. 21.39 min) nor in recovery time between the two devices. CONCLUSION: The SRT performed similarly to the classic PT in terms of tolerance and recovery time when applied in the arm and thigh of unmedicated healthy volunteers.