Table 2.

Comparison of various studies

Study	Journal	Year	Techniques	Sample size	Pain scale	Mean Score	Mean time to anesthesia	Failed anaesthesia	Conclusion
Ahmad et al. (Pakistan)	Current study	2010	Ring block & Transmetacarpal block	15 each	Analogue pain scale 0–10	5.67 & 4.2	9.1 & 9.0	NIL	Both effective
Hill et al.3 (USA)	Ann Emerg Med	1999	Transthecal & Traditional Digital Block	31 volunteers	Visual analogue	Mean analog score 1.7 & 1.4	188 & 152		Both equal
Knoop et al.4 (USA)	Ann Emerg Med	1994	Digital block & metacarpal block	30 patients	Non segmental visual analogue	Mean analogue score 2.53 & 3.38	2.82 & 6.35 minutes	3% & 23%	Digital block more effective
Bashir et al.10 (Pakistan)	J Coll Physicians Surg Pak	2008	Dorsal digital block & Volar block	30 patients	Pain scale score 0–10	5.27+1.05 & 4.27+0.87	_______	________	Volar block more effective
Willaim et al.8 (Canada)	Plast Reconstr Surg	2006	Doral block & Volar block	27 volunteers	______	______	_______	________	No significant difference
Hung et al.1 (USA)	J Hand Surg (B)	2005	Subcutaneous, Metacarpal & Transthecal	50 volunteers	Analogue pain score	________	______	______	Subcutaneous block preferred
Brutus et al.13(Belgium)	Chir Main	2002	Transthecal, Subcutaneous & Combination of both	30 patients	Visual analogue pain scale	83.3%	______	16.7%	Subcutaneous preferred
Low et al.11 (USA)	J Hand Surg (Am)	1997	Transthecal & Subcutaneous	20 volunteers	______	______	______	_______	Subcutaneous preferred
Cannon et al.12 (UK)	Emerg Med J	2010	Subcutaneous & Digital nerve block	37 & 39	NIL (clinician satisfaction)	89% & 82%	_______	_______	Subcutaneous preferred