Delayed onset and long-lasting hemidiaphragmatic paralysis and cranial nerve deficit after interscalene nerve block for rotator cuff repair in beach chair position

Safety of Cubital Tunnel Release Under General versus Regional Anesthesia

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of early (<6 weeks) post-operative complications following ulnar nerve decompressions at the cubital tunnel performed under regional anesthesia compared to those performed under general anesthesia.

Methods

In situ ulnar nerve decompressions at the cubital tunnel performed at a single institution from 2012 through 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Post-operative complications were compared between subjects who underwent the procedure with regional versus general anesthesia.

Results

Ninety-one ulnar nerve in situ decompressions were included in the study, which were performed under regional anesthesia in 55 and general anesthesia in 36 cases. The occurrence of post-operative complications was not significantly different between patients who received regional (n = 7) anesthesia and general (n = 8) anesthesia. None of the complications were directly attributed to the type of anesthesia administered. The change in pre- and post-operative McGowan scores were not significantly different between anesthesia groups (p = 0.81).

Conclusion

In situ ulnar nerve decompression at the cubital tunnel under regional anesthesia does not result in increased post-operative complications compared to those surgeries performed under general anesthesia. In situ ulnar nerve decompression performed under regional anesthesia is a safe and reliable option for patients who wish to avoid general anesthesia.

Level of Evidence

III.

Suprascapular and Interscalene Nerve Block for Shoulder Surgery

Background

Interscalene block provides optimal shoulder surgery analgesia, but concerns over its associated risks have prompted the search for alternatives. Suprascapular block was recently proposed as an interscalene block alternative, but evidence of its comparative analgesic effect is conflicting. This meta-analysis compares the analgesic effect and safety of suprascapular block versus interscalene block for shoulder surgery.

Methods

Databases were searched for randomized trials comparing interscalene block with suprascapular block for shoulder surgery. Postoperative 24-h cumulative oral morphine consumption and the difference in the area under curve for pooled rest pain scores were designated as primary outcomes. Analgesic and safety outcomes, particularly block-related and respiratory complications, were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results were pooled using random-effects modeling.

Results

Data from 16 studies (1,152 patients) were analyzed. Interscalene block and suprascapular block were not different in 24-h morphine consumption. The difference in area under the curve of pain scores for the 24-h interval favored interscalene block by 1.1 cm/h, but this difference was not clinically important. Compared with suprascapular block, interscalene block reduced postoperative pain but not opioid consumption during recovery room stay by a weighted mean difference (95% CI) of 1.5 cm (0.6 to 2.5 cm; P &lt; 0.0001). Pain scores were not different at any other time. In contrast, suprascapular block reduced the odds of block-related and respiratory complications.

Conclusions

This review suggests that there are no clinically meaningful analgesic differences between suprascapular block and interscalene block except for interscalene block providing better pain control during recovery room stay; however, suprascapular block has fewer side effects. These findings suggest that suprascapular block may be considered an effective and safe interscalene block alternative for shoulder surgery.