Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Infraclavicular Block (infraclavicular + block)
Selected AbstractsA 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] 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] Pneumothorax after an ultrasound-guided lateral sagittal infraclavicular blockACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 8 2008Z. J. Koscielniak-Nielsen No abstract is available for this article. [source] Vertical infraclavicular block and myasthenia gravisANAESTHESIA, Issue 8 2001A. M. Troy First page of article [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] | ||||||||||