Systematic evaluation of the highest current threshold for regional anaesthesia in a porcine model

A Swiss nationwide survey shows that dual guidance is the preferred approach for peripheral nerve blocks

Ultrasound has significantly increased safety and effectiveness in regional anesthesia. However, little is known about its clinical use. We studied clinical approaches currently used by anesthesiologists, conducted a nationwide survey, and analyzed data collected in ordered logistic regression models. All active members of the Swiss Society for Anaesthesiology and Resuscitation (SSAR/SGAR) were asked to participate. Reported practice in nerve localization, safety, and techniques used for peripheral nerve blocks (PNB) were main outcome measures. Experience ranged from 3 to >30 years. The mean number of block techniques mastered was 11.5 ± 5.9. Standard monitoring was regularly used, whereas sterile coats were less frequently used by anesthesiologists who self-estimated a higher level of expertise in PNB (ordered logit coefficient −0.05, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.02, P < 0.001; pseudo r2 = 0.019; probability > Chi2 = 0.02). The more self-estimated expertise anesthesiologists had, the less likely they were to use nerve stimulation in combination with ultrasound (dual guidance) (ordered logit coefficient −0.31; 95% CI −0.85 to −0.03: P = 0.03; pseudo r2 = 0.007; probability > Chi2 = 0.05). The high share of reported standard monitoring meets the recommendations of the Helsinki Patient Safety Declaration. Dual guidance appears to be the preferred approach for safely localizing nerves for PNB in Switzerland.

Risk evaluation for needle-nerve contact related to electrical nerve stimulation in a porcine model

BACKGROUND

For performing peripheral nerve blocks, the risk for needle-nerve contact (NNC) as an adverse event for low and high current thresholds has not yet been clearly defined when nerve stimulator guided techniques were applied. This experimental study aimed to investigate the risk of NNCs when applying stimulation currents between 0.1 and 2 mA (in increments of 0.1 mA).

METHODS

Brachial plexus nerves were exposed surgically in five anesthetized pigs. An insulated needle connected to a nerve stimulator was placed at 10 mm distance to the targeted nerves. Current intensity was adjusted according to randomization (0.1-2.0 mA, increments of 0.1 mA). The needle tip was advanced toward the nerve until a motor response was elicited. The frequencies of NNCs for each of the adjusted current intensities were noted. Risks of NNCs were calculated according to the analysis of 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

We executed 2000 needle placements with stimulation currents ranging from 0.1 to 2.0 mA. The risks for NNC at low current intensities were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) for 0.3 mA and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.4-0.6) for 0.5 mA, respectively. For high current intensities, risks of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.07-0.21) for 0.9 mA and 0.01 (95% CI, 0-0.05) for 1.1 mA were calculated.

CONCLUSIONS

In this experimental animal study, a relevant reduction in the risk of NNCs could be observed when high current intensities (0.9-1.1 mA) were applied compared to low current intensities (0.3-0.5 mA).

Nerve perforation with pencil point or short bevelled needles: histological outcome

BACKGROUND

In the case of needle nerve contact during peripheral blocks, pencil point needles are considered less traumatic compared with bevelled needles. However, there are not enough data to prove this notion. Therefore, the aim of this study was to challenge the hypothesis that nerve perforation with short bevelled needles is associated with major nerve damage compared with pencil point needles.

METHODS

In five anaesthetised pigs, the brachial plexus was exposed bilaterally. Up to eight nerves underwent needle nerve perforation using a pencil point needles cannula or an short bevelled needle. After 48 h, the nerves were resected. The specimens were processed for visual examination and the detection of inflammatory cells (haematoxylin-eosin, i.e. CD68-immunohistochemistry to detect macrophages), myelin damage (Kluver-Barrera staining) and intraneural haematoma. The grade of nerve injury was characterised by an objective score ranging from 0 (no injury) to 4 (severe injury).

RESULTS

Fifty nerves were examined. According to the injury score applied, there was no significant difference between the pencil point needles [median (inter-quartile range) 2.0 (2.0-2.0)] and the short bevelled-needle group [median 2.0 (2.0-2.0) P=0.23]. No myelin damage was observed. Signs of post-traumatic inflammation were equally distributed among both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, the magnitude of nerve injury after needle nerve perforation was not related to one of the applied needle types. Post-traumatic inflammation rather than structural damage of nerve tissue is the only notable sign of nerve injury after needle nerve perforation with either needle type. However, neither the pencil point- nor the short bevelled needle can be designated a less traumatic device.