SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri / 2017 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of RIVA and infraclavicular block in forearm and hand surgery

Guldem TURAN
Asu OZGULTEKİN
Osman EKİNCİ
Gulcin OZTURK
Dilek SUBASİ
Zubeyir SARİKAYA
Reyhan CETİNER
Pages
131–140
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Processing time to apply the block was significantly longer in Group 1 compared with Group 2.CONCLUSION: It was determined that infraclavicular brachial block is superior to the RIVA method with respect to length of time required to administer and ease of application.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare 2 techniques that are widely used in hand, wrist, and forearm: regional intravenous anesthesia (RIVA) and infraclavicular brachial block.METHODS: A total of 100 patients who were aged 18 to 85 years and who underwent hand, wrist, or forearm surgery of at least 30 minutes duration were included.
📊
Key Findings & Data:RIVA was applied to Group 1 patients with administration of 40 mL of prilocaine (3 mg/kg).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Processing time to apply the block was significantly longer in Group 1 compared with Group 2.CONCLUSION: It was determined that infraclavicular brachial block is superior to the RIVA method with respect to length of time required to administer and ease of application.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare 2 techniques that are widely used in hand, wrist, and forearm: regional intravenous anesthesia (RIVA) and infraclavicular brachial block.METHODS: A total of 100 patients who were aged 18 to 85 years and who underwent hand, wrist, or forearm surgery of at least 30 minutes duration were included. RIVA was applied to Group 1 patients with administration of 40 mL of prilocaine (3 mg/kg). Ultrasonography-guided infraclavicular block was performed on Group 2 patients with 20 mL of 1% prilocaine. Several aspects of these 2 methods were compared, including length of time required to apply anesthesia, the analgesic effectiveness of the treatment during administration and in the peroperative and postoperative periods.RESULTS: The rate of mild and complete sensory loss was significantly higher in Group 2 at 10th and 15th minutes than in Group 1. The number scoring less than grade 2 using modified Bromage grading system in Group 2 was considerably greater than in Group 1. Processing time to apply the block was significantly longer in Group 1 compared with Group 2.CONCLUSION: It was determined that infraclavicular brachial block is superior to the RIVA method with respect to length of time required to administer and ease of application.

🔖

Cite This Article

TURAN, G., OZGULTEKİN, A., EKİNCİ, O., OZTURK, G., SUBASİ, D., SARİKAYA, Z., CETİNER, R. (2022). Comparison of RIVA and infraclavicular block in forearm and hand surgery. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2, 131–140. https://ajindex.com/articles/551559

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Gürkan Y, Acar S, Solak M, Toker K. Comparison of nerve stimulation vs. ultrasound-guided lateral sagittal infraclavicular block. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2008;52:851-5
  2. Klaastad Ø, Smedby O, Thompson GE, Tillung T, Hol PK, Røtnes JS, et al. Distribution of local anesthetic in axillary brachial plexus block: a clinical and magnetic resonance imaging study. Anesthesiology 2002;96:1315-24
  3. Hadzic A, Arliss J, Kerimoglu B, Karaca PE, Yufa M, Claudio RE, et al. A comparison of infraclavicular nerve block versus gen eral anesthesia for hand and wrist day-case surgeries. Anesthesiology 2004;101:127-32
  4. 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;98:252-6
  5. Heid FM, Jage J, Guth M, Bauwe N, Brambrink AM. Efficacy of vertical infraclavicular plexus block vs. modified axillary plexus block: a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2005;49:677-82
  6. Marhofer P, Greher M, Kapral S. Ultrasound guidance in regional anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2005;94:7-17
  7. Koscielniak-Nielsen ZJ, Rasmussen H, Hesselbjerg L, Nielsen TP, Gürkan Y. Infraclavicular block causes less discomfort than axillary block in ambulatory patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2005;49:1030-4
  8. Gürkan Y, Ozdamar D, Hoşten T, Solak M, Toker K. Ultrasound guided lateral sagital infraclavicular block for pectoral flap release. Agri 2009;21:39-42
  9. Brown DL. Brachial plexus anesthesia: an analysis of options. Yale J Biol Med 1993;66:415-31
  10. Kleinschmidt S, Stöckl W, Wilhelm W, Larsen R. The addition of clonidine to prilocaine for intravenous regional anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1997;14:40-6
  11. Turan A, Memiş D, Karamanlioğlu B, Güler T, Pamukçu Z. Intravenous regional anesthesia using lidocaine and magnesium. Anesth Analg 2005;100:1189-92
  12. Whiteside JB, Wildsmith JA. Developments in local anaesthetic drugs. Br J Anaesth 2001;87:27-35
  13. Sean JE, Vonda B, Cephas PS. Intravenous regional anesthesia: a reviev. Seminars in Anesthesia. Perioperative Medicine and Pain 1998;1:2-9
  14. Gürkan Y, Tekin M, Acar S, Solak M, Toker K. Is nerve stimulation needed during an ultrasound-guided lateral sagittal infraclavicular block? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2010;54:403-7
  15. Yarkan Uysal H, Acar HV, Tezer E, Ceyhan A, Dikmen B. Ultrasonography (us) guidance in infraclavicular b