Nerve stimulator polarity and brachial plexus block

Electrical nerve stimulation method for intraoperative localization of the inferior alveolar nerve within the mandible: a pilot study in rabbits

The efficacy of the electrical nerve stimulation method for localizing the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) within the mandibular bone was evaluated. Six New Zealand rabbits were used (both sides of the mandible). The IAN was stimulated through the mandibular bone and compound action potentials (CAPs) were recorded proximally from the main trunk of the nerve. Stimulation current pulse widths were set at 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 1ms. The minimum current magnitude that generated a CAP with a criterion level (300mV peak-to-peak amplitude) was measured in the range of 0.05-5mA. Correlations between the distance of the IAN from the active electrode site and the minimum current magnitudes were studied for each pulse width. The correlation coefficients were 0.678, 0.807, 0.893, 0.851, and 0.890 for the pulse widths of 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 1ms, respectively. The minimum current producing the criterion CAP response in the IAN was significantly (P<0.0001 for all pulse widths) and highly correlated with the distance between the stimulation site and the nerve. The results suggest that electrical nerve stimulation is a promising method that can be used for the localization of the IAN, especially during mandibular implant surgery.

Feasibility of nerve stimulator as a supplemental aid for lumbar transforaminal epidural block

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of an electric nerve stimulator in a lumbar transforaminal epidural block.

METHODS

Using an electric nerve stimulator, transforaminal epidural blocks were performed in 105 segments of 49 patients who presented with lower back pain with radiating pain to lower extremities. The contrast medium was injected to delineate the nerve root after positioning an insulated needle at the intervertebral foramen under fluoroscopic guidance. Then, the nerve root was electrically stimulated with the insulated needle to confirm whether or not the same radiating pain was evoked.

RESULTS

Of the 105 foraminal segments, the same radiating pain was evoked at 0.5 mAh in 47 segments (44.8%), at 1.0 mAh in 22 (21.0%), at 1.5 mAh in 3 (2.9%), at 2.0 mAh in 15 (14.3%), at 2.5 mAh in 4 (3.8%), and at 3.0 mAh in 5 (4.8%). No response was observed in 9 segments (8.6%). The fluoroscopy revealed successful positioning of the needle in the patients with an evoked radiating pain over 2.0 mAh. The visual analogue scale (VAS) obtained for pain improved from a mean of 7.5 to 2.7 after the block (p = 0.001). In the 9 cases without response to electrical stimulation, the patients showed an improvement on VAS from 7.8 to 3.4 (p= 0.008) also.

CONCLUSIONS

A nerve stimulator can help to predict the accuracy of needle positioning as a supplemental aid for a successful lumbar transforaminal epidural block. It is sufficient to initiate a proper stimulation amplitude of the nerve at 2 mAh.

Peripheral nerve stimulation in regional anesthesia

Peripheral nerve stimulation has a long history in regional anesthesia. Despite the advent of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blockade, nerve stimulation remains a popular technique used alone or, now, in combination with ultrasound-guided techniques. In light of this evolving utility of nerve stimulation, this is an appropriate time to review the basic concepts and knowledge base of this historically important tool. Electrical nerve stimulation facilitates nerve localization, using threshold current as a surrogate for needle-to-nerve distance. Preferential activation of motor nerves is possible because motor nerve fibers are more readily activated with a shorter duration of current compared with sensory nerves. The association between current and needle-to-nerve distance predicts that less current is needed to evoke a motor response as the needle moves closer to the nerve. Thus, an elicited motor response at or below 0.5 mA is considered a common end point for successful neural blockade. However, current magnitude is neither 100% sensitive nor specific. Independent of technical ability, both the biological environment and the equipment used impact the current-distance relationship. Thus, successful electrical nerve stimulation is dependent on an anesthesiologist with a solid foundation in anatomy and a thorough understanding of electrophysiology.

An objective assessment of nerve stimulators used for peripheral nerve blockade*

Nerve stimulation is considered by many to be the current 'gold standard' for locating peripheral nerves. Thirteen nerve stimulators were subjected to a battery of tests performed by two independent observers under standardised conditions using a digital oscilloscope, a calibrated resistance and a novel scoring system. Individual scores were assigned for the signal waveform, current intensity, impulse duration, maximum load output and functionality of each nerve stimulator; the maximum score achievable was 20. A score of > or = 15/20 was achieved by six nerve stimulators: Stimuplex HNS 12 (B Braun); MultiStim Vario (Pajunk); Plexival (Medival, Vygon); MultiStim Sensor (Pajunk); Plexygon (Aryon, Vygon); Stimuplex HNS 11 (B Braun). Seven nerve stimulators scored < 15/20. Anaesthetists should be aware of the limitations of the nerve stimulator being used. Standardisation of features is desirable when manufacturing nerve stimulators.

The Supraclavicular Block with a Nerve Stimulator: To Decrease or Not to Decrease, That Is the Question

Portable nerve stimulators for nerve blocks have been available for more than 40 yr. It is generally accepted that seeking a motor response at low outputs increases the chances of success. It is customary to start the procedure at a higher current with the goal of finding the nerve. After an adequate response is elicited, the current is decreased before the local anesthetic is injected. However, how low is low enough and, for that matter, how high is too high have not been adequately determined. Our experience seems to indicate that, in the supraclavicular block, the type of response obtained is as important as the output at which it is elicited, provided that this current is not higher than 1 mA. In this context, it is theoretically possible that our initial seeking current of 0.9 mA could be an adequate injection current if it is combined with an appropriate response. We designed this study to test the hypothesis that a response of the fingers in flexion or extension, elicited at 0.9 mA, could be followed immediately by the local anesthetic injection. We did not intend to compare 0.5 and 0.9 mA as minimum stimulating currents but rather as currents able to elicit an unmistakable motor twitch. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group 1 (n = 30) was injected with a motor twitch in the fingers that was still visible at 0.5 mA. Group 2 (n = 30) was injected after a similar response to that in Group 1 was elicited, but at the initial output of 0.9 mA, without any further decrease. The blocks were injected with 40 mL of local anesthetic solution. One patient was excluded from the study for failing to meet protocol criteria. The success rate in the remaining 59 patients was 100%; success was defined as complete sensory blockade at the median, ulnar, and radial nerve territories of the hand that was accomplished in <or=30 min from the time of injection and that did not require supplementation or general anesthesia. In fact, all blocks became complete within 22 min of the injection. The onset of anesthesia occurred in 10.9 +/- 5.4 min in the 0.5-mA group and 11.4 +/- 4.8 min in the 0.9-mA group; this difference was not statistically different. The onset of analgesia and the duration of anesthesia were also similar in both groups. There were no complications, and the respondents in both groups graded their experience at a similar level of satisfaction. We conclude that during the performance of a supraclavicular block eliciting a clearly visible response of the fingers at 0.9 mA can be immediately followed by the injection of local anesthetic, because decreasing the output to 0.5 mA does not seem to improve the overall quality of the block as measured by the onset and duration of anesthesia or patient satisfaction.

IMPLICATIONS

When nerve blocks are performed with a nerve stimulator, it is customary to reduce the nerve stimulator output to <= 0.5 mA before injecting. Apparently this is not necessary with a supraclavicular block.

Surface mapping of peripheral nerves in children with a nerve stimulator

Defining anatomical landmarks may be difficult in the growing child. With the aid of a peripheral nerve stimulator, the path of many superficial peripheral nerves can be 'mapped' prior to skin penetration by stimulating the motor component of the peripheral nerve percutaneously with a 2-3.5 mA output. The required current will vary and is dependent upon the depth of the nerve and the moistness of the overlying skin. This 'nerve mapping technique' has proved particularly useful for brachial plexus, axillary, ulna and median nerve blocks in the upper limb and femoral and popliteal nerve blocks in the lower limb. It is a useful teaching tool and improves the success rate of peripheral nerve blocks in children of all ages.