Block Performance (block + performance)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Terms modified by Block Performance

  • block performance time
    		•

    Selected Abstracts

    Procedural pain of an ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: a comparison of axillary and infraclavicular approaches

    ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 4 2010
    B. S. FREDERIKSEN
    Background: Ultrasound (US)-guided infraclavicular (IC) and axillary (AX) blocks have similar effectiveness. Therefore, limiting procedural pain may help to choose a standard approach. The primary aims of this randomized study were to assess patient's pain during the block and to recognize its cause. Methods: Eighty patients were randomly allocated to the IC or the AX group. A blinded investigator asked the patients to quantify block pain on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS 0,100) and to indicate the most unpleasant component (needle passes, paraesthesie or local anaesthetics injection). Sensory block was assessed every 10 min. After 30 min, the unblocked nerves were supplemented. Patients were ready for surgery when they had analgesia or anaesthesia of the five nerves distal to the elbow. Preliminary scan time, block performance and latency times, readiness for surgery, adverse events and patient's acceptance were recorded. Results: The axillary approach resulted in lower maximum VAS scores (median 12) than the infraclavicular approach (median 21). This difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07). Numbers of patients indicating the most painful component were similar in both groups. Patients in either group were ready for surgery after 25 min. Two patients in the IC group and seven in the AX group needed block supplementation (n.s.). Block performance times and number of needle passes were significantly lower in the IC group. Patients' acceptance was 98% in both groups. Conclusions: We did not find significant differences between the two approaches in procedural pain and patient's acceptance. The choice of approach may depend on the anaesthesiologist's experience and the patient's preferences. [source]

    Single vs. double stimulation during a lateral sagittal infraclavicular block

    ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 10 2009
    E. AKY
    Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of single vs. dual control during an ultrasound-guided lateral sagittal infraclavicular block on the efficacy of sensory block and the time of block onset. Methods: In a prospective manner, 60 adult patients scheduled for distal upper limb surgery were randomly allocated to single (Group S) or double stimulation (Group D) groups. A local anesthetic (LA) mixture of 20 ml of levobupivacaine 5 mg/ml and 20 ml of lidocaine 20 mg/ml with 5 ,g/ml epinephrine (total 40 ml) was administered in both groups. In the Group S following a median, an ulnar or a radial nerve response, the entire LA was administered at a single site. In Group D 10 ml of LA was administered following the electrolocation of the musculocutaneous nerve and 30 ml LA was injected following median, ulnar or radial nerves. A successful block was defined as analgesia or anesthesia of all five nerves distal to the elbow. Sensory and motor blocks were tested at 5-min intervals for 30 min. Results: The block was successful in 27 patients in Group S and 28 patients in Group D. The time from starting the block until satisfactory anesthesia was significantly shorter in Group D than in Group S (19.3 vs. 23.2 min) (P<0.05). Total sensory scores were significantly higher in the double stimulation group at 20 and 30 min after the block performance (P<0.05). Conclusions: Although the block performance time was longer in the double stimulation group, block onset time and extent of anesthesia were more favorable in the double stimulation group. [source]

    A comparison of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular blocks for upper extremity surgery

    ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 5 2009
    Z. J. KOSCIELNIAK-NIELSEN
    Background: Ultrasound (US)-guided supraclavicular or infraclavicular blocks are commonly used for upper extremity surgery. The aims of this randomized study were to compare the block performance and onset times, effectiveness, incidence of adverse events and patient's acceptance of US-guided supraclavicular or infraclavicular blocks. We hypothesized that the supraclavicular approach, being more superficial and easier to visualize using a 10 MHz transducer, will produce a faster and a more extensive sensory block. Methods: One hundred and twenty patients were randomized to two equal groups: supraclavicular (S) and infraclavicular (I). Each patient received a mixture containing equal volumes of ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml and mepivacaine 20 mg/ml with adrenaline 5 ,g/ml, 0.5 ml/kg body weight (minimum 30 ml, maximum 50 ml). The sensory score (anaesthesia , 2 points, analgesia , 1 point and pain , 0 point) of the seven terminal nerves was assessed every 10 min. Patients were declared ready for surgery when they had an effective surgical block , anaesthesia or analgesia of the five nerves below the elbow. Thirty minutes after the block, the unblocked nerves were supplemented. The block performance and latency times, surgical effectiveness, adverse events and patient's acceptance were recorded. Results: Significantly more patients in the I group were ready for surgery 20 and 30 min after the block. The mean block performance time was 5.7 min in the S group and 5.0 min in the I group (NS). Block effectiveness was superior in the I group: 93% vs. 78% in the S group (P=0.017). The S group patients had a significantly poorer block of the median and ulnar nerves, but a better block of the axillary nerve. Sensory scores at 10, 20 and 30 min were not significantly different. Thirty-two patients in the S group vs. nine patients in the I group experienced transient adverse events (P<0.0001). Patients' acceptance of the block was similar in both groups. Conclusions: Infraclavicular block had a faster onset, better surgical effectiveness and fewer adverse events. Block performance time and patients' acceptance of the procedure were similar in both groups. [source]

    A comparison of coracoid and axillary approaches to the brachial plexus

    ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 3 2000
    Z. J. Koscielniak-Nielsen
    Background: Brachial plexus block by the coracoid approach does not require arm abduction and may be more effective than the axillary approach because of a more proximal injection of local anaesthetic. However, the clinical usefulness of the coracoid approach has not been tested in prospective controlled trials. The present randomized, observer-blinded study compared success rates, time to obtain a complete block, frequency of adverse effects and block discomfort in two groups of 30 patients, anaesthetized for hand surgery using either the coracoid or the axillary approach to the brachial plexus. Methods: After subcutaneous infiltration with 5 ml of 1% mepivacaine/adrenaline the brachial plexus was located using a nerve stimulator and an insulated pencil-point needle. Ropivacaine 0.75%, 20,40 ml, depending on body weight, was used for the initial block. In the coracoid (C) group two plexus cords, and in the axillary (A) group four terminal nerves were electrolocated and the volume of ropivacaine was divided equally between them. Spread of analgesia to the arm was assessed every 5 min, by an anaesthetist unaware of the block technique. The block was defined as effective (complete) when analgesia was present in all five sensory nerve areas distal to the elbow. Incomplete blocks were supplemented 30 min after the initial block. Results: In the C group a median 11 min was required for block performance as compared to 12 min in the A group (NS). Onset of block was shorter and the frequency of incomplete blocks lower in the A group (median 17 min and 17%) than in the C group (30 min and 47%, respectively). Lack of analgesia of the ulnar nerve was the main cause of incomplete initial blocks in the C group. All incomplete blocks were successfully supplemented. However, total time to obtain complete block was shorter in the A group than in the C group (29 min vs. 41 min, P<0.05). Accidental arterial puncture occurred in seven patients (five in C and two in A group), which resulted in two haematomas, both in the C group (NS). No permanent sequelae were observed. Conclusion: The axillary approach to the brachial plexus using four injections of ropivacaine results in a faster onset of block and a better spread of analgesia than the coracoid approach using two injections. [source]

    Ultrasound vs nerve stimulation multiple injection technique for posterior popliteal sciatic nerve block

    ANAESTHESIA, Issue 6 2009
    G. Danelli
    Summary In this prospective, randomised, observer-blinded study we evaluated whether ultrasound guidance can shorten the onset time of popliteal sciatic nerve block as compared to nerve stimulation with a multiple injection technique. Forty-four ASA I,III patients undergoing posterior popliteal sciatic nerve block with 20 ml of 0.75% ropivacaine were randomly allocated to nerve stimulation or ultrasound guided nerve block. A blinded observer recorded onset of sensory and motor blocks, success rates, the need for fentanyl intra-operatively, the requirement for general anaesthesia, procedure-related pain, patient satisfaction and side-effects. Onset times for sensory and motor blocks were comparable. The success rate was 100% for ultrasound guided vs 82% for nerve stimulation (p = 0.116). Ultrasound guidance reduced needle redirections (p = 0.01), were associated with less procedural pain (p = 0.002) and required less time to perform (p = 0.002). Ultrasound guidance reduced the time needed for block performance and procedural pain. [source]