Ultrasonography- or electrophysiology-guided suprascapular nerve block in arthroscopic acromioplasty: a prospective, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled study of efficacy

Assessment of 2 distinct anatomical landmarks for suprascapular nerve injection: a cadaveric study

BACKGROUND

The suprascapular nerve block (SSNB) is a commonly used procedure for the management of pain in various shoulder pathologies. Both image-guided and landmark-based techniques have been utilized successfully for SSNB, though more consensus is needed regarding the optimal method of administration. This study aims to evaluate the theoretical effectiveness of a SSNB at 2 distinct anatomic landmarks and propose a simple, reliable way of administration for future clinical use.

METHODS

Fourteen upper extremity cadaveric specimens were randomly assigned to either receive an injection 1 cm medial to the posterior acromioclavicular (AC) joint vertex or 3 cm medial to the posterior AC joint vertex. Each shoulder was injected with a 10 ml methylene blue solution at the assigned location, and gross dissection was performed to evaluate the anatomic diffusion of the dye. The presence of dye was specifically assessed at the suprascapular notch, supraspinatus fossa, and spinoglenoid notch to determine the theoretic analgesic effectiveness of a SSNB at these 2 injection sites.

RESULTS

Methylene blue diffused to the suprascapular notch in 57.1% of the 1-cm group and 100% of the 3-cm group, the supraspinatus fossa in 71.4% of the 1-cm group and 100% of the 3-cm group, and the spinoglenoid notch in 100% of the 1-cm group and 42.9% of the 3-cm group.

CONCLUSION

Given its superior coverage at the more proximal sensory branches of the suprascapular nerve, a SSNB injection performed 3 cm medial to the posterior AC joint vertex provides more clinically adequate analgesia than an injection site 1 cm medial to the AC junction. Performing a SSNB injection at this location allows for an effective method of anesthetizing the suprascapular nerve.

Iatrogenic Injury to the Suprascapular Nerve Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Case Report

The location and course of the suprascapular nerve (SSN) to the glenohumeral joint places this nerve at risk when operating around the shoulder. Iatrogenic injury to the suprascapular nerve has been described in several different procedures including, rotator cuff repairs, posterior capsulorraphy, Bankart repairs, SLAP lesion repairs, Latarjet procedures, and shoulder arthroplasty. We present a case of iatrogenic suprascapular nerve injury due to superior glenoid baseplate screw placement following primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), a novel approach to diagnosis of nerve injury, and treatment.

Multimodal nerve injection provides noninferior analgesic efficacy compared with interscalene nerve block after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

PURPOSE

This randomized noninferiority trial aimed to evaluate whether combined suprascapular, axillary nerve, and the articular branch of lateral pectoral nerve block (3NB) is noninferior to interscalene nerve block (ISB) for pain control after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ASRCR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-five patients undergoing ASRCR were randomized to either 3NB (n = 43) or ISB (n = 42) group. We used 5 and 15 ml of 0.2% ropivacaine for each nerve in the 3NB and ISB groups, respectively. The primary outcome was the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at 4 h postoperatively measured assessed on an 11-point scale (ranging from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain) that was analyzed using noninferiority testing. The secondary outcome was VAS pain scores in the recovery room and at 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 h postoperatively. Rebound pain, IV-PCA usage during 48 h, dyspnea, muscle weakness, and satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

Regarding the primary outcome, the mean difference in VAS pain scores between the 3NB (2.5 ± 1.6) and ISB (2.2 ± 2.3) groups at 4 h postoperatively was 0.3, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of -0.56 to 1.11. The upper limit of 95% CI is lower than the noninferiority margin of 1.3 (p < 0.001). At all other time points, except in the recovery room, 3NB showed noninferior to ISB. Rebound pain, IV-PCA usage during the second 24 h, and muscle weakness were lower in the 3NB group (all p < 0.005). The satisfaction was similar in both groups (p = 0.815).

CONCLUSION

Combined 3NB is noninferior to ISB in terms of pain control after ASRCR; and is associated with low levels of rebound pain, IV-PCA usage, and muscle weakness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Randomized controlled trial, Level I.

Continuous suprascapular nerve block compared with single-shot interscalene brachial plexus block for pain control after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

OBJECTIVES

We compared the analgesic efficacy of a continuous suprascapular nerve block (C-SSNB) and a single-shot interscalene brachial plexus block (S-ISNB) for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

METHODS

A total of 118 patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were randomly allocated to the S-ISNB or C-SSNB groups. Postoperative pain was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) at 1, 2, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively. Supplemental analgesic use was recorded as total equianalgesic fentanyl consumption.

RESULTS

The C-SSNB group showed significantly higher VAS scores at 0-1 h and 1-2 h after the surgery than the S-ISNB group (4.9±2.2 versus 2.3±2.2; p<0.0001 and 4.8±2.1 versus 2.4±2.3; p<0.0001, respectively). The C-SSNB group showed significantly lower VAS scores at 6-12 h after the surgery than the S-ISNB group (4.1±1.8 versus. 5.0±2.5; p=0.031). The C-SSNB group required significantly higher doses of total equianalgesic fentanyl in the post-anesthesia care unit than the S-ISNB group (53.66±44.95 versus 5.93±18.25; p<0.0001). Total equianalgesic fentanyl in the ward and total equianalgesic fentanyl throughout the hospital period were similar between the groups (145.99±152.60 versus 206.13±178.79; p=0.052 and 199.72±165.50 versus 212.15±180.09; p=0.697, respectively).

CONCLUSION

C-SSNB was more effective than S-ISNB at 6-12 h after the surgery for postoperative analgesia after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Suprascapular Nerve Blockade for Postoperative Pain Control After Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background:

Regional nerve blocks are commonly used to manage postoperative pain after arthroscopic shoulder procedures. The interscalene brachial plexus block (ISB) is commonly used; however, because of the reported side effects of ISB, the use of a suprascapular nerve block (SSNB) has been described as an alternative strategy with fewer reported side effects.

Purpose:

To examine the efficacy of SSNB for pain control after shoulder arthroscopy compared with ISB as well as anesthesia without a nerve block.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods:

Three databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) were searched on April 20, 2018, to systematically identify and screen the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis of standard mean differences (SMDs) was performed to pool the estimated effects of the nerve blocks.

Results:

The search identified 14 RCTs that included 1382 patients, with a mean age of 54 years (SD, 13 years). The mean follow-up time was 3 days (range, 24 hours to 6 weeks). Postoperative pain control was significantly more effective in the SSNB groups compared with the control groups within 1 hour (SMD, –0.76; 95% CI, –1.45 to –0.07; P = .03) and 4 to 6 hours (SMD, –0.81; 95% CI, –1.53 to –0.09; P = .03) postoperatively. However, pain control was significantly less effective in the SSNB groups compared with ISB within 1 hour (SMD, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.46; P = .004). No major complications were noted in the SSNB groups, and minor complications such as hoarseness and prolonged motor block were significantly less common for SSNB compared with ISB.

Conclusion:

Although not more efficacious than ISB in terms of pain control for patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy, SSNB provides significantly improved pain control in comparison with analgesia without a nerve block. Moreover, few major and minor complications are associated with SSNB reported across the literature.

Clinical Applications of Ultrasonography in the Shoulder and Elbow

In the past 30 years, the use of ultrasonography in the field of orthopaedics has evolved. As ultrasonography has been refined, smaller machines with higher fidelity and better transducers have become available at a lower cost. Diagnostic and therapeutic applications of ultrasonography in the shoulder and elbow have expanded imaging options and provided alternatives to surgical management. Ultrasonography is a dynamic tool that affords immediate diagnostic assessment for clinical correlation and can be used for serial examinations and image guidance during therapeutic procedures. This imaging modality is highly reliable and accurate and may limit the need for costly imaging referrals, particularly in geographic areas where advanced imaging is not readily available. However, clinical expertise is paramount for ultrasonography, which is an operator-dependent modality. Ultrasonography is an effective educational resource; therefore, the curriculum in orthopaedic residency training programs should include education on this modality as the use of ultrasonography increases among orthopaedic surgeons.

Comparison of Arthroscopically Guided Suprascapular Nerve Block and Blinded Axillary Nerve Block vs. Blinded Suprascapular Nerve Block in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the results of arthroscopically guided suprascapular nerve block (SSNB) and blinded axillary nerve block with those of blinded SSNB in terms of postoperative pain and satisfaction within the first 48 hours after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

METHODS

Forty patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair for medium-sized full thickness rotator cuff tears were included in this study. Among them, 20 patients were randomly assigned to group 1 and preemptively underwent blinded SSNB and axillary nerve block of 10 mL 0.25% ropivacaine and received arthroscopically guided SSNB with 10 mL of 0.25% ropivacaine. The other 20 patients were assigned to group 2 and received blinded SSNB with 10 mL of 0.25% ropivacaine. Visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain and patient satisfaction score were assessed 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean VAS score for pain was significantly lower 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours postoperatively in group 1 (group 1 vs. group 2; 5.2 vs. 7.4, 4.1 vs. 6.1, 3.0 vs. 5.1, 2.1 vs. 4.2, 0.9 vs. 3.9, and 1.3 vs. 3.3, respectively). The mean patient satisfaction score was significantly higher at postoperative 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours in group 1 (group 1 vs. group 2; 6.7 vs. 3.9, 7.4 vs. 5.1, 8.8 vs. 5.9, 9.2 vs. 6.7, 9.5 vs. 6.9, and 9.0 vs. 7.2, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopically guided SSNB and blinded axillary nerve block in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair for medium-sized rotator cuff tears provided more improvement in VAS for pain and greater patient satisfaction in the first 48 postoperative hours than blinded SSNB.

Ultrasound guidance for upper and lower limb blocks

BACKGROUND

Peripheral nerve blocks can be performed using ultrasound guidance. It is not yet clear whether this method of nerve location has benefits over other existing methods. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess whether the use of ultrasound to guide peripheral nerve blockade has any advantages over other methods of peripheral nerve location. Specifically, we have asked whether the use of ultrasound guidance:1. improves success rates and effectiveness of regional anaesthetic blocks, by increasing the number of blocks that are assessed as adequate2. reduces the complications, such as cardiorespiratory arrest, pneumothorax or vascular puncture, associated with the performance of regional anaesthetic blocks

SEARCH METHODS

In the 2014 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8); MEDLINE (July 2008 to August 2014); EMBASE (July 2008 to August 2014); ISI Web of Science (2008 to April 2013); CINAHL (July 2014); and LILACS (July 2008 to August 2014). We completed forward and backward citation and clinical trials register searches.The original search was to July 2008. We reran the search in May 2015. We have added 11 potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into the formal review findings during future review updates.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block of the upper and lower limbs, alone or combined, with at least one other method of nerve location. In the 2014 update, we excluded studies that had given general anaesthetic, spinal, epidural or other nerve blocks to all participants, as well as those measuring the minimum effective dose of anaesthetic drug. This resulted in the exclusion of five studies from the original review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including an assessment of risk of bias and degree of practitioner experience for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs with 2844 adult participants. Twenty-six assessed upper-limb and six assessed lower-limb blocks. Seventeen compared ultrasound with peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), and nine compared ultrasound combined with nerve stimulation (US + NS) against PNS alone. Two studies compared ultrasound with anatomical landmark technique, one with a transarterial approach, and three were three-arm designs that included US, US + PNS and PNS.There were variations in the quality of evidence, with a lack of detail in many of the studies to judge whether randomization, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors was sufficient. It was not possible to blind practitioners and there was therefore a high risk of performance bias across all studies, leading us to downgrade the evidence for study limitations using GRADE. There was insufficient detail on the experience and expertise of practitioners and whether experience was equivalent between intervention and control.We performed meta-analysis for our main outcomes. We found that ultrasound guidance produces superior peripheral nerve block success rates, with more blocks being assessed as sufficient for surgery following sensory or motor testing (Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) odds ratio (OR), fixed-effect 2.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.04); 1346 participants), and fewer blocks requiring supplementation or conversion to general anaesthetic (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.28 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.39); 1807 participants) compared with the use of PNS, anatomical landmark techniques or a transarterial approach. We were not concerned by risks of indirectness, imprecision or inconsistency for these outcomes and used GRADE to assess these outcomes as being of moderate quality. Results were similarly advantageous for studies comparing US + PNS with NS alone for the above outcomes (M-H OR, fixed-effect 3.33 (95% CI 2.13 to 5.20); 719 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.34 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.56); 712 participants respectively). There were lower incidences of paraesthesia in both the ultrasound comparison groups (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.42 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.76); 471 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.97 (95% CI 0.30 to 3.12); 178 participants respectively) and lower incidences of vascular puncture in both groups (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.19 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.57); 387 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.22 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.90); 143 participants). There were fewer studies for these outcomes and we therefore downgraded both for imprecision and paraesthesia for potential publication bias. This gave an overall GRADE assessment of very low and low for these two outcomes respectively. Our analysis showed that it took less time to perform nerve blocks in the ultrasound group (mean difference (MD), IV, fixed-effect -1.06 (95% CI -1.41 to -0.72); 690 participants) but more time to perform the block when ultrasound was combined with a PNS technique (MD, IV, fixed-effect 0.76 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.98); 587 participants). With high levels of unexplained statistical heterogeneity, we graded this outcome as very low quality. We did not combine data for other outcomes as study results had been reported using differing scales or with a combination of mean and median data, but our interpretation of individual study data favoured ultrasound for a reduction in other minor complications and reduction in onset time of block and number of attempts to perform block.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that peripheral nerve blocks performed by ultrasound guidance alone, or in combination with PNS, are superior in terms of improved sensory and motor block, reduced need for supplementation and fewer minor complications reported. Using ultrasound alone shortens performance time when compared with nerve stimulation, but when used in combination with PNS it increases performance time.We were unable to determine whether these findings reflect the use of ultrasound in experienced hands and it was beyond the scope of this review to consider the learning curve associated with peripheral nerve blocks by ultrasound technique compared with other methods.

Ultrasound guidance for upper and lower limb blocks

BACKGROUND

Peripheral nerve blocks can be performed using ultrasound guidance. It is not yet clear whether this method of nerve location has benefits over other existing methods. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess whether the use of ultrasound to guide peripheral nerve blockade has any advantages over other methods of peripheral nerve location. Specifically, we have asked whether the use of ultrasound guidance:1. improves success rates and effectiveness of regional anaesthetic blocks, by increasing the number of blocks that are assessed as adequate2. reduces the complications, such as cardiorespiratory arrest, pneumothorax or vascular puncture, associated with the performance of regional anaesthetic blocks

SEARCH METHODS

In the 2014 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8); MEDLINE (July 2008 to August 2014); EMBASE (July 2008 to August 2014); ISI Web of Science (2008 to April 2013); CINAHL (July 2014); and LILACS (July 2008 to August 2014). We completed forward and backward citation and clinical trials register searches.The original search was to July 2008. We reran the search in May 2015. We have added 11 potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into the formal review findings during future review updates.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block of the upper and lower limbs, alone or combined, with at least one other method of nerve location. In the 2014 update, we excluded studies that had given general anaesthetic, spinal, epidural or other nerve blocks to all participants, as well as those measuring the minimum effective dose of anaesthetic drug. This resulted in the exclusion of five studies from the original review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including an assessment of risk of bias and degree of practitioner experience for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs with 2844 adult participants. Twenty-six assessed upper-limb and six assessed lower-limb blocks. Seventeen compared ultrasound with peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), and nine compared ultrasound combined with nerve stimulation (US + NS) against PNS alone. Two studies compared ultrasound with anatomical landmark technique, one with a transarterial approach, and three were three-arm designs that included US, US + PNS and PNS.There were variations in the quality of evidence, with a lack of detail in many of the studies to judge whether randomization, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors was sufficient. It was not possible to blind practitioners and there was therefore a high risk of performance bias across all studies, leading us to downgrade the evidence for study limitations using GRADE. There was insufficient detail on the experience and expertise of practitioners and whether experience was equivalent between intervention and control.We performed meta-analysis for our main outcomes. We found that ultrasound guidance produces superior peripheral nerve block success rates, with more blocks being assessed as sufficient for surgery following sensory or motor testing (Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) odds ratio (OR), fixed-effect 2.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.04); 1346 participants), and fewer blocks requiring supplementation or conversion to general anaesthetic (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.28 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.39); 1807 participants) compared with the use of PNS, anatomical landmark techniques or a transarterial approach. We were not concerned by risks of indirectness, imprecision or inconsistency for these outcomes and used GRADE to assess these outcomes as being of moderate quality. Results were similarly advantageous for studies comparing US + PNS with NS alone for the above outcomes (M-H OR, fixed-effect 3.33 (95% CI 2.13 to 5.20); 719 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.34 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.56); 712 participants respectively). There were lower incidences of paraesthesia in both the ultrasound comparison groups (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.42 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.76); 471 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.97 (95% CI 0.30 to 3.12); 178 participants respectively) and lower incidences of vascular puncture in both groups (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.19 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.57); 387 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.22 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.90); 143 participants). There were fewer studies for these outcomes and we therefore downgraded both for imprecision and paraesthesia for potential publication bias. This gave an overall GRADE assessment of very low and low for these two outcomes respectively. Our analysis showed that it took less time to perform nerve blocks in the ultrasound group (mean difference (MD), IV, fixed-effect -1.06 (95% CI -1.41 to -0.72); 690 participants) but more time to perform the block when ultrasound was combined with a PNS technique (MD, IV, fixed-effect 0.76 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.98); 587 participants). With high levels of unexplained statistical heterogeneity, we graded this outcome as very low quality. We did not combine data for other outcomes as study results had been reported using differing scales or with a combination of mean and median data, but our interpretation of individual study data favoured ultrasound for a reduction in other minor complications and reduction in onset time of block and number of attempts to perform block.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that peripheral nerve blocks performed by ultrasound guidance alone, or in combination with PNS, are superior in terms of improved sensory and motor block, reduced need for supplementation and fewer minor complications reported. Using ultrasound alone shortens performance time when compared with nerve stimulation, but when used in combination with PNS it increases performance time.We were unable to determine whether these findings reflect the use of ultrasound in experienced hands and it was beyond the scope of this review to consider the learning curve associated with peripheral nerve blocks by ultrasound technique compared with other methods.

Effect of ultrasonographically guided axillary nerve block combined with suprascapular nerve block in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the results of ultrasonographically guided axillary nerve block (ANB) combined with suprascapular nerve block (SSNB) with those of SSNB alone on postoperative pain and satisfaction within the first 48 hours after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

METHODS

Forty-two patients with rotator cuff tears who had undergone arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were enrolled in this study. Among them, 21 patients were randomly allocated to group 1 and received both SSNB and ANB with 10 mL ropivacaine. The other 21 patients were allocated to group 2 and received SSNB with 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine and ANB with 10 mL saline. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, patient satisfaction (SAT), and lateral pain index (LPI) was checked at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

Group 1 showed a significantly lower mean VAS score at postoperative 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours compared with group 2 (5.1 < 7.6, 4.4 < 6.3, 3.7 < 5.3, 3.2 < 4.5, 2.7 < 4.0, and 2.7 < 3.4, respectively). A significantly high mean SAT and low mean LPI was observed in group 1 at postoperative 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 hours (4.9 > 2.4, 5.9 > 3.7, 6.3 > 5.0, 6.8 > 5.7, 7.3 > 6.2, 7.5 > 6.6, and 7.7 > 7.0, respectively), (1.1 < 3.0, 0.8 < 2.5, 0.7 < 2.0, 0.7 < 1.6, 0.6 < 1.3, 0.6 < 1.0, and 0.4 < 0.7, respectively). The frequency of rebound pain decreased in group 1 compared with group 2 (P = .032). In addition, rebound phenomenon showed a correlation with ANB on univariate logistic regression (P = .034; odds ratio, 0.246).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasonographically guided ANB combined with SSNB in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair showed an improved mean VAS in the first 24 hours after surgery compared with SSNB alone. The mean SAT and LPI of the combined blocks were better than those of the single block within the first 36 hours. Ultrasonographically guided ANB combined with SSNB also decreased the rebound phenomenon.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Efficacy of arthroscopically placed pain catheter adjacent to the suprascapular nerve (continuous arthroscopically assisted suprascapular nerve block) following arthroscopic rotator-cuff repair

Background

Rotator-cuff surgery is well recognized to be a painful procedure.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of an arthroscopically placed perineural catheter at the scapular notch to provide a continuous block of the suprascapular nerve (continuous arthroscopically assisted suprascapular nerve block [ca-SSNB]) following arthroscopic rotator-cuff repair (ARCR).

Materials and methods

This level II, prospective, randomized, controlled trial without postoperative blinding included 40 patients, who had a 48-hour pain pump, with 0.2% ropivacaine infusion and a continuous rate of 3 mL/hour, placed via an arthroscopically placed catheter following ARCR with arthroscopic release of the superior transverse ligament: 21 patients had a ca-SSNB, and 19 patients had a continuous subacromial bursal block (SAB). The visual analog scale (at 6 hours and on the first, second, and third postoperative days) and the total number of additional pain-reduction attempts during the 3 postoperative days were calculated.

Results

The respective visual analog scale scores (mm) obtained from the ca-SSNB and SAB groups were 62.4 and 67.6 (P=0.73) before surgery, 9.1 and 19.4 (P=0.12) at 6 hours after surgery, 24.4 and 44.6 (P=0.019) on the first postoperative day, 19.4 and 40.4 (P=0.0060) on the second postoperative day, and 18.5 and 27.8 (P=0.21) on the third postoperative day. Total additional pain-reduction attempts recorded for the ca-SSNB and SAB groups during the 3 postoperative days were 0.3 times and 1.2 times (P=0.0020), respectively.

Conclusion

ca-SSNB was highly effective in controlling postoperative pain after ARCR.