Journals / Ağrı / 2012 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches for brachial plexus blockade

Brakiyal pleksus bloğunda ultrason eşliğinde supraklavikuler ve infraklavikuler yaklaşımın karşılaştırılması

Journal
Ağrı
Pages
159–164
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Similar block features were observed with infraclavicular and supraclavicular approaches, but infraclavicular block may be preferable to supraclavicular block due to the lower incidence of transient adverse events.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular blocks are commonly used for upper extremity surgery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The primary aims of our study were to compare block success, block onset times and performance times; secondary aims were to compare the number of needle advancements, and incidence of adverse events of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular or infraclavicular blocks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Similar block features were observed with infraclavicular and supraclavicular approaches, but infraclavicular block may be preferable to supraclavicular block due to the lower incidence of transient adverse events.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular blocks are commonly used for upper extremity surgery. The primary aims of our study were to compare block success, block onset times and performance times; secondary aims were to compare the number of needle advancements, and incidence of adverse events of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular or infraclavicular blocks. Methods: 110 patients were randomized into two groups: supraclavicular (Group S) and infraclavicular (Group I). All the patients were given a mixture of 20 ml 0.5% levobupivacaine and 10 ml 2% lidocaine as local anesthetics. The sensory score of the seven terminal nerves was assessed every 10 min for 30 min. Results: Block success (Group I: 92.7%; Gorup S: 83.6%) and block onset time (Group I: 12.5±4.8; Group S: 11.6±3.9 min) were similar between the groups. Block performance time was shorter in Group I, than Group S (194.4±65; 226.3±59 sec, P<0.05). The number of needle advancements were lower in Group I than Group S (p<0.05). The Group I patients had a significantly improved block of the median and ulnar nerves than Group S, and Group S patients had a better block of the medial cutaneous nerve, than Group I (p<0.05). Horner syndrome was observed in 9 patients (16.3%) and paresthesia in one patient (1.8%) in Group S. Conclusion: Similar block features were observed with infraclavicular and supraclavicular approaches, but infraclavicular block may be preferable to supraclavicular block due to the lower incidence of transient adverse events.

Özet

Amaç: Ultrason rehberliğinde yapılan supraklaviküler ve infraklaviküler bloklar üst ekstremite cerrahisinde sıklıkla uygulanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın birinci amacı ultrason rehberliğinde yapılan supraklaviküler ve infraklaviküler blokların, blok başarısı, blok başlama zamanı ve blok uygulama zamanının, ikinci amacı ise iğne yönlendirme sayısının ve istenmeyen yan etkilerin görülme sıklığının karşılaştırılmasıydı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Hastalar (n=110) supraklaviküler (Grup S) ve infraklaviküler (Grup İ) olmak üzere iki gruba ayrıldı. Lokal anestezik olarak tüm hastalara 20 ml %5’lik levobupivakain ve 10 ml %2’lik lidokain karışımı uygulandı. Duyu skoru yedi terminal sinirde 30 dk boyunca her 10 dk da bir olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Gruplar arasında blok oluşma süresi (Grup İ: 12.5±5; Grup S: 11.6±4 dk) ve blok başarısı (Grup İ: %92.7; Grup S: %83.6) benzerdi. Blok uygulama süresi Grup İ’de Grup S’den anlamlı derecede kısaydı (194.4±65; 226.3±59 sn) (p<0.05) İğne yönlendirme sayısı Grup İ’de Grup S’den anlamlı derecede azdı (p<0.05). Grup İ’deki hastalarda ulnar ve median sinirlerin blokajı Grup S’deki hastalardan, Grup S’deki hastalarda ise medial kutanöz sinirin blokajı Grup İ’dekilerden anlamlı derecede başarılı idi (p<0.05). Grup S’de 9 hastada (%16.3) Horner sendromu, bir hastada (%1.8) parestezi görüldü. Sonuç: İnfraklaviküler ve supraklaviküler yaklaşımla blok özellikleri benzer bulunmuştur ancak infraklaviküler yaklaşım geçici yan etkilerinin daha az olması nedeniyle supraklaviküler bloğa tercih edilebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜRKAN, Y., HOŞTEN, T., TEKİN, M., ACAR, S., SOLAK, M., TOKER, K. (2012). Comparison of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches for brachial plexus blockade. Ağrı, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 4, 159–164. https://ajindex.com/articles/174945

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Perlas A, Niazi A, McCartney C, Chan V, Xu D, Abbas S. The sensitivity of motor response to nerve stimulation and paresthesia for nerve localization as evaluated by ultrasound. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2006;31(5):445-50
  2. Sauter AR, Dodgson MS, Stubhaug A, Cvancarova M, Klaastad O. Ultrasound controlled nerve stimulation in the elbow region: high currents and short distances needed to obtain motor responses. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2007;51(7):942-8
  3. Tsai TP, Vuckovic I, Dilberovic F, Obhodzas M, Kapur E, Divanovic KA, et al. Intensity of the stimulating current may not be a reliable indicator of intraneural needle placement. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008;33(3):207-10
  4. Fanelli G, Casati A, Garancini P, Torri G. Nerve stimulator and multiple injection technique for upper and lower limb blockade: failure rate, patient acceptance, and neurologic complications. Study Group on Regional Anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1999;88(4):847-52
  5. Brown DL, Bridenbaugh LD. The upper extremity somatic block. In: Cousins MJ, Bridenbaugh PO, editors. Neural blockade. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998:345-370
  6. Casati A, Danelli G, Baciarello M, Corradi M, Leone S, Di Cianni S, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison between ultrasound and nerve stimulation guidance for multiple injection axillary brachial plexus block. Anesthesiology 2007;106(5):992-6
  7. Perlas A, Lobo G, Lo N, Brull R, Chan VW, Karkhanis R. Ultrasound- guided supraclavicular block: outcome of 510 consecutive cases. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2009;34(2):171-6
  8. Soares LG, Brull R, Lai J, Chan VW. Eight ball, corner pocket: the optimal needle position for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007;32(1):94-5
  9. Klaastad Ø, Smith HJ, Smedby O, Winther-Larssen EH, Brodal P, Breivik H, et al. A novel infraclavicular brachial plexus block: the lateral and sagittal technique, developed by magnetic resonance imaging studies. Anesth Analg 2004;98(1):252-6
  10. Sauter AR, Dodgson MS, Stubhaug A, Halstensen AM, Klaastad Ø. Electrical nerve stimulation or ultrasound guidance for lateral sagittal infraclavicular blocks: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, comparative study. Anesth Analg 2008;106(6):1910-5
  11. Franco CD, Vieira ZE. 1,001 subclavian perivascular brachial plexus blocks: success with a nerve stimulator. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2000;25(1):41-6
  12. Arcand G, Williams SR, Chouinard P, Boudreault D, Harris P, Ruel M, et al. Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular versus supraclavicular b