Comparision of nerve stimulator and ultrasonography as the techniques applied for brachial plexus anesthesia

Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Superior Laryngeal Nerve Block with the Traditional Method for Direct Laryngoscopic Biopsy of Supraglottic Masses: A Clinical Trial

Background

A bilateral superior laryngeal nerve block (SLNB) can provide complete anesthesia for laryngeal sampling and by providing this block we can manage the biopsy of supraglottic masses without the complications of general anesthesia.

Objectives

This study aimed to compare 2 superior laryngeal nerve block (SLNB) methods using ultrasound and the traditional method for direct laryngoscopic surgery for the biopsy of supraglottic masses.

Methods

In this single-blind clinical trial, 50 patients undergoing supraglottic laryngeal mass biopsy under direct laryngoscopy were divided into 2 groups. The first group was anatomical landmark bilateral SLNB (C group), and the second group was sono-guided bilateral SLNB (U group). Hemodynamic changes, pain, oxygen desaturation, surgeon satisfaction, and the complication obtained and noted.

Results

There was no significant difference in the success rate of the procedure (P = 0.99), as well as the surgeon's satisfaction with the procedure (P = 0.337). Mean arterial pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation, and their changes in the studied groups were compared before the block, after the block, after the biopsy, and in the recovery room, showing no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). Only the heart rate (HR) after the biopsy and in the recovery room showed significant differences between the 2 groups (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the level of patient and surgeon satisfaction and pain during and after the procedure (P > 0.005).

Conclusions

SLNB for direct laryngoscopic surgery for biopsy of supraglottic masses using ultrasound was not significantly superior to the traditional method, and there was no significant difference between the 2 methods in terms of procedure success, surgeon's satisfaction, and patients' pain.

Peripheral Nerve Injury After Upper-Extremity Surgery Performed Under Regional Anesthesia: A Systematic Review

Purpose

Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is a known adverse event following upper-limb surgery performed under brachial plexus regional anesthesia (RA). When PNI is noted after surgery, patients and providers often have questions about which factors might have contributed to this complication. This systematic review evaluates the literature on hand and shoulder surgeries performed under ultrasound-guided, plexus RA to identify factors potentially associated with PNI, including the surgery location and block type. We hypothesized that shoulder surgery might be associated with an increased risk of PNI compared to hand surgery.

Methods

A systematic review of the relevant literature was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only prospective studies on the use of ultrasound-guided, preoperative, brachial plexus RA for hand or shoulder surgery on adult patients were included. Study groups were categorized according to surgery location and block type and compared across a number of factors via univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

A total of 3,037 abstracts were screened; 192 full-text articles were independently reviewed by 2 of the authors; and 53 studies were included in the systematic review analysis. Following hand surgery, PNI was reported at an average rate of 1.35% ± 3.21% across 836 subjects in 40 study groups; after shoulder surgery, the average rate was 0.50% ± 1.57% across 3,383 subjects in 15 study groups. There was no statistically significant correlation between the incidence of PNI and surgery location (P =.70) or any of the most common approaches for brachial plexus anesthesia in the multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

This systematic review of over 50 articles on upper-limb surgery performed under RA shows no association between the incidence of PNI and the location of surgery or type of brachial plexus block.

Type of study/level of evidence

Diagnostic II.

A randomised, non-inferiority study of chloroprocaine 2% and ropivacaine 0.75% in ultrasound-guided axillary block

Chloroprocaine is a short-acting local anaesthetic with a rapid onset of action and an anaesthesia duration up to 60 min. In this pivotal study success rates, onset and remission of motor and sensory block and safety of chloroprocaine 2% was compared to ropivacaine 0.75% for short-duration distal upper limb surgery with successful block rates as primary outcome. The study was designed as a prospective, randomised, multi-centre, active-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority study, performed in 4 European hospitals with 211 patients scheduled for short duration distal upper limb surgery under axillary plexus block anaesthesia. Patients received either ultrasound guided axillary block with 20 ml chloroprocaine 2%, or with 20 ml ropivacaine 0.75%. Successful block was defined as block without any supplementation in the first 45 min calculated from the time of readiness for surgery. 90.8% patients achieved a successful block with chloroprocaine 2% and 92.9% patients with Ropivacaine 0.75%, thus non-inferiority was demonstrated (10% non inferiority margin; 95% CI − 0.097, 0.039; p = 0.02). Time to onset of block was not significantly different between the groups. Median time to motor and sensory block regression was significantly shorter as was time to home discharge (164 [155–170] min for chloroprocaine versus 380 [209–450] for the ropivacaine group, p < 0.001). For short-duration surgical procedures, the short-acting Chloroprocaine 2% may be used, with success rates non-inferior to ropivacaine and a favourable safety profile.

Trial registration: The trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov with registration number NCT02385097 (March 11th, 2015) and European Clinical Trial Database with the EudraCT number 2014-002519-40 (July 7th, 2015, Austria—BASG).

European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Guidelines on peri-operative use of ultrasound for regional anaesthesia (PERSEUS regional anesthesia): Peripheral nerves blocks and neuraxial anaesthesia

Nowadays, ultrasound-guidance is commonly used in regional anaesthesia (USGRA) and to locate the spinal anatomy in neuraxial analgesia. The aim of this second guideline on the PERi-operative uSE of UltraSound (PERSEUS-RA) is to provide evidence as to which areas of regional anaesthesia the use of ultrasound guidance should be considered a gold standard or beneficial to the patient. The PERSEUS Taskforce members were asked to define relevant outcomes and rank the relative importance of outcomes following the GRADE process. Whenever the literature was not able to provide enough evidence, we decided to use the RAND method with a modified Delphi process. Whenever compared with alternative techniques, the use of USGRA is considered well tolerated and effective for some nerve blocks but there are certain areas, such as truncal blocks, where a lack of robust data precludes useful comparison. The new frontiers for further research are represented by the application of USG during epidural analgesia or spinal anaesthesia as, in these cases, the evidence for the value of the use of ultrasound is limited to the preprocedure identification of the anatomy, providing the operator with a better idea of the depth and angle of the epidural or spinal space. USGRA can be considered an essential part of the curriculum of the anaesthesiologist with a defined training and certification path. Our recommendations will require considerable changes to some training programmes, and it will be necessary for these to be phased in before compliance becomes mandatory.

Comparison of Single-Dose Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block and Continuous Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block Applications in the Treatment of Finger Amputations

Introduction The aim of this study is to evaluate the replantation success of single-dose infraclavicular brachial plexus block and continuous infraclavicular brachial plexus block (CIBPB) applied with bupivacaine and prilocaine in patients with finger amputation. Materials and Methods This prospective randomized nonblinded study was conducted between January 2012 and September 2017, and 47 patients, all male, were included. Patients were randomly separated into two groups as 23 patients CIBPB applied group (group A) and 24 patients single-dose infraclavicular block applied group (group B). In group B, after the effect of block is ceased, intravenous patient-controlled (PC) opioid analgesia and, where necessary, 1 mg/kg meperidine and 75 mg diclofenac sodium intramuscularly were alternately administered at 4 to 6 hours intervals. The average ages were 30.7 ± 10.06 and 29 ± 9.08, respectively. Replantations were applied as being two venous anastomoses to one artery, where possible. Hourly skin temperatures of fingers of the hands in which both surgeries applied and no surgery applied in both the groups were measured for 3 days with an infrared thermometer. Also, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) evaluations in both the groups were performed in 3-hour intervals for 3 days. Results Replantations were successful in 22 patients in whom CIBPB was applied (95.6%) and in 19 patients in whom single block was applied (79.16%). Regarding the finger temperatures, no significant difference was detected between both the groups for 3 days following the operation. No significant difference was found between the length of hospital stays (4.73 ± 2.21-4.71 ± 1.53) and duration of operations (2.90 ± 0.73-2.83 ± 0.58). There was no significant difference between the temperature values of both the groups. NRS scores of group A were statistically significantly lower than those of group B. Conclusion In this prospective randomized study performed by using bupivacaine and prilocaine on 24 patients, the success rate of finger replantations with CIBPB was found to be higher. CIBPB is a very beneficial method that should be taken in consideration in hand injuries with anastomosis and high risk of vasospasm. Further studies with more number of cases would help reduce the question marks related with the success of this method.

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.

Our experiences with a single injection axillary block technique

OBJECTIVE:

Axillary plexus block is one of the widely used technique for upper extremity surgery. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the single injection axillary plexus block technique we used in our rutine anesthesia practice, between August 2010-March 2011.

METHODS:

Medical records of ASA I-III, 40 17 female and 23 male patients who underwent elective single injection axillary block performed by neurostimulation technique in elective distal part of the arm, forearm and hand surgeries were evaluated, retrospectively. Axillary block was performed with a nerve stimulator, and a 22 G, 50 mm insolated needle. The needle was inserted immediately superior to axillary artery, advanced through the lateral border of the pectoralis major muscle and to the most proximal part of the axilla. The local anesthetic mixture (1% lidocaine 20 ml + 0.25% bupivacaine 15 ml) was injected to the place (point) where the distal motor responses of the median and ulnar nerves were elicited at the same time, before dropping the stimulation current down to 0.5 mA. In our study, demographic data, motor and sensory block times, the success rate and the complications of the block were evaluated.

RESULTS:

The mean block performance time was 1.21±0.39 min in our 40 patients. The onset time of the motor block was 14.20±4.96 min and the sensory block was 17.19±2.71 min, respectively. The success rate of the block was 97.5 percent. No complication was found during 24 hours postoperatively. The sensory and motor functions returned properly in all patients.

CONCLUSION:

In our study we found that the single injection axillary block tecnique was easy to perform with its higher success, and lower complication rates. Therefore we concluded that axillary block should be supported in appropriate cases.