Although the wide-awake anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) technique has demonstrated high efficacy, safety, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness in hand surgery, there are limited data on its use in foot and ankle surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the WALANT technique in selected foot and ankle injuries in terms of intra- and post-operative characteristics.

Patients with foot and ankle injuries who underwent surgery with the WALANT technique were evaluated in this retrospective study. A total of 31 patients (22 male/9 female) with a mean age of 40 ± 16 years were evaluated for the type of injury, underlying comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA) score, intraoperative visual analog pain (VAS) and anxiety (VAS-A) scores, duration of operation, complications, need for intensive care and duration of hospitalization.

There were 15 patients with medial malleolus fracture, 5 with lateral malleolus fracture, 5 with Achilles tendon ruptures, 2 with proximal phalangeal fracture, and 1 with Lisfranc injury, medial malleolus + syndesmotic injury, deltoid ligament + syndesmotic injury and fifth metatarsal fracture. ASA I-II score was determined in 27 patients and ASA III score in 4. The mean operation time was 36.6 ± 7 min, and the mean length of hospital stay was 8.3 ± 6.1 h. The median VAS pain score was 1 (range, 0-4), the median VAS-A score was 1 (range, 0-3) and no patient needed further anesthetics during the operation. No patient needed intensive care unit stay and no complications were observed in any patient.

The WALANT technique was seen to provide satisfactory anxiety and pain scores, acceptable complications, and a short length of hospital stay in patients with foot and ankle injuries. Simple foot and ankle injuries can be managed successfully with this technique through adequate hemostasis without a tourniquet.

Level III.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
64% Article relates to my practice (11/17)
23% Article does not relate to my practice (4/17)
11% Undecided (2/17)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

82% Yes (14/17)
11% No (2/17)
5% Undecided (1/17)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/17)
94% No (16/17)
5% Undecided (1/17)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/17)
11% Level 2 (2/17)
82% Level 3 (14/17)
0% Level 4 (0/17)
5% Level 5 (1/17)