|
| ||
|
|
||
Block Performance Time (block + performance_time)
Selected AbstractsIs nerve stimulation needed during an ultrasound-guided lateral sagittal infraclavicular block?ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 4 2010Y. GÜRKAN Background: The objective of the study was to evaluate the influence of ultrasound (US) guidance alone vs. neurostimulation (NS) and US (NSUS) guidance techniques on block performance time and block success rate for the lateral sagittal infraclavicular block (LSIB). Methods: In a randomized and prospective manner, 110 adult patients scheduled for distal upper limb surgery were allocated to the US or the NSUS groups. In the US group, a local anesthetic (LA) was administered only with US guidance to produce a ,U'-shaped distribution around the axillary artery. In the NSUS group, LA was administered under US guidance only after electrolocation of one of the median, ulnar or radial nerve-type responses. A total of 30 ml of LA (10 ml of levobupivacaine 5 mg/ml and 20 ml of lidocaine 20 mg/ml) was administered in both groups. Sensory block was tested at 10 min intervals for 30 min. Successful block was defined as analgesia or anesthesia of all five nerves distal to the elbow. Results: Block success rate was 94.5% in both groups. Block performance time was significantly shorter in the US than the NSUS group (157 ± 50 vs. 230 ± 104 s) (P=0.000). Block onset time was similar in both groups (12.5 ± 4.8 in the US vs. 12.8 ± 5.4 min in the NSUS groups). There were two arterial punctures in the NSUS group. Conclusions: During LSIB performance US guidance alone produces block success rate identical to both US and NS guidance yet with a shorter block performance time. [source] A comparison of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular blocks for upper extremity surgeryACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 5 2009Z. 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] Procedural pain of an ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: a comparison of axillary and infraclavicular approachesACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 4 2010B. 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 stimulation of the posterior cord is superior to dual nerve stimulation in a coracoid blockACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 2 2010J. RODRÍGUEZ Background: Both multiple injection and single posterior cord injection techniques are associated with extensive anesthesia of the upper limb after an infraclavicular coracoid block (ICB). The main objective of this study was to directly compare the efficacy of both techniques in terms of the rates of completely anesthetizing cutaneous nerves below the elbow. Methods: Seventy patients undergoing surgery at or below the elbow were randomly assigned to receive an ICB after the elicitation of either a single radial nerve-type response (Radial group) or of two different main nerve-type responses of the upper limb, except for the radial nerve (Dual group). Forty milliliters of 1.5% mepivacaine was given in a single or a dual dose, according to group assignment. The sensory block was assessed in each of the cutaneous nerves at 10, 20 and 30 min. Block performance times and the rates of complete anesthesia below the elbow were also noted. Results: Higher rates of sensory block of the radial nerve were found in the Radial group at 10, 20 and 30 min (P<0.05). The rates of sensory block of the ulnar nerve at 30 min were 97% and 75% in the Radial and in the Dual groups, respectively (P<0.05). The rate of complete anesthesia below the elbow was also higher in the Radial group at 30 min (P<0.05). Conclusions: Injection of a local anesthetic after a single stimulation of the radial nerve fibers produced more extensive anesthesia than using a dual stimulation technique under the conditions of our study. [source] Is nerve stimulation needed during an ultrasound-guided lateral sagittal infraclavicular block?ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 4 2010Y. GÜRKAN Background: The objective of the study was to evaluate the influence of ultrasound (US) guidance alone vs. neurostimulation (NS) and US (NSUS) guidance techniques on block performance time and block success rate for the lateral sagittal infraclavicular block (LSIB). Methods: In a randomized and prospective manner, 110 adult patients scheduled for distal upper limb surgery were allocated to the US or the NSUS groups. In the US group, a local anesthetic (LA) was administered only with US guidance to produce a ,U'-shaped distribution around the axillary artery. In the NSUS group, LA was administered under US guidance only after electrolocation of one of the median, ulnar or radial nerve-type responses. A total of 30 ml of LA (10 ml of levobupivacaine 5 mg/ml and 20 ml of lidocaine 20 mg/ml) was administered in both groups. Sensory block was tested at 10 min intervals for 30 min. Successful block was defined as analgesia or anesthesia of all five nerves distal to the elbow. Results: Block success rate was 94.5% in both groups. Block performance time was significantly shorter in the US than the NSUS group (157 ± 50 vs. 230 ± 104 s) (P=0.000). Block onset time was similar in both groups (12.5 ± 4.8 in the US vs. 12.8 ± 5.4 min in the NSUS groups). There were two arterial punctures in the NSUS group. Conclusions: During LSIB performance US guidance alone produces block success rate identical to both US and NS guidance yet with a shorter block performance time. [source] Single vs. double stimulation during a lateral sagittal infraclavicular blockACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 10 2009E. 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] Are peripheral and neuraxial blocks with ultrasound guidance more effective and safe in children?PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, Issue 2 2009KASIA RUBIN MD Summary Background and aims:, The efficacy and safety of ultrasound guided (USG) pediatric peripheral nerve and neuraxial blocks in children have not been evaluated. In this review, we have looked at the success rate, efficacy and complications with USG peripheral nerve blocks and compared with nerve stimulation or anatomical landmark based techniques in children. Methods:, All suitable studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE Drugs and Cochrane Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews databases were identified. In addition, citation review and hand search of recent pediatric anesthesia and surgical journals were done. All three authors read all selected articles independently and a consensus was achieved. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing USG peripheral and neuraxial blocks with other techniques in children were included. Results:, Ultrasound guidance has been demonstrated to improve block characteristics in children including shorter block performance time, higher success rates, shorter onset time, longer block duration, less volume of local anesthetic agents and visibility of neuraxial structures. Conclusion:, Clinical studies in children suggest that US guidance has some advantages over more traditional nerve stimulation,based techniques for regional block. However, the advantage of US guidance on safety over traditional has not been adequately demonstrated in children except ilio-inguinal blocks. [source] | ||||||||||