Article

Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks: the real position of the needle should be defined.

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Lapeyronie University Hospital and Montpellier 1 University, Montpellier, France. x-capdevila@chu-montpellier.f.
Anesthesia and analgesia (Impact Factor: 3.08). 05/2012; 114(5):929-30. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31823207b9
Source: PubMed
0 Bookmarks
 · 
111 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fundamento y objetivo Las recomendaciones sobre la posición ideal de la punta de la aguja para obtener un bloqueo poplíteo guiado por ultrasonidos efectivo varía según los autores. Nuestra hipótesis fue que la inyección del anestésico local dentro de la fascia común de tejido conectivo que recubre el nervio ciático a nivel de la división es más efectiva que la inyección por fuera de la misma. Métodos Se incluyeron 34 pacientes programados para cirugía de hallux valgus con bloqueo poplíteo distribuidos aleatoriamente en 2 grupos: inyección subfascial (n = 16) entre los nervios tibial y peroneo a nivel de la división sin modificar la posición de la aguja, e inyección perifascial (n = 18) rodeando el nervio ciático al mismo nivel inyectando a ambos lados del mismo. Se administraron 30 ml de una mezcla de mepivacaína al 1,5% y levobupivacaína la 0,5% en ambos casos. Se evaluó la instauración del bloqueo sensitivo cada 5 min y la duración del mismo. Resultados A los 30 minutos todos los pacientes del grupo subfascial (100%) presentaron un bloqueo quirúrgico adecuado frente a 12 pacientes en el grupo perifascial (67%). La instauración del bloqueo sensitivo fue más rápida en el grupo subfascial que en el perifascial (9,1 ± 7,4 min frente a 19,0 ± 4,0 min; p < 0,001). Conclusiones Nuestro estudio evidencia que para asegurar un bloqueo poplíteo quirúrgico efectivo en menos de 30 min el anestésico local debe inyectarse dentro de la fascia común.
    Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion 01/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ideal spread of local anesthetic for effective, rapid, and safe sciatic nerve block is debated. We hypothesized that subparaneural ultrasound-guided injection results in faster onset and has a better success rate than extraneural circumferential spread.
    Regional anesthesia and pain medicine. 06/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ability of an evoked motor response (EMR) with nerve stimulation to detect intraneural needle placement reliably at low current intensity has recently been challenged. In this study, we hypothesized that current intensity is higher in needle-nerve contact than in intraneural needle placement. Brachial plexus nerves were exposed surgically in 6 anesthetized pigs. An insulated needle connected to a nerve stimulator was placed either with 1 mm distance to the nerve (control position), adjacent to nerve epineurium (needle-nerve contact position), or inside the nerve (intraneural position). Three pulse duration settings were applied in random fashion (0.1, 0.3, or 1.0 milliseconds) at each needle position. Starting at 0.0 mA, electrical current was increased until a minimal threshold current resulting in a specific EMR was observed. Fifty threshold current measurements were scheduled for each needle position-pulse duration setting. Four hundred-fifty threshold currents in 50 peripheral nerves were measured. Threshold current intensities (mA) to elicit EMR showed small differences between the needle-nerve contact position [median (25th-75th percentiles); 0.1 milliseconds: 0.12 (0.08-0.18) mA; 0.3 milliseconds: 0.10 (0.06-0.12) mA; 1.0 milliseconds: 0.06 (0.04-0.10) mA] and the intraneural position (0.1 milliseconds: 0.12 [0.10-0.16] mA; 0.3 milliseconds: 0.08 [0.06-0.10] mA; 1.0 milliseconds: 0.06 [0.06-0.08] mA) that are neither statistically significant nor clinically relevant. Regardless of the pulse duration that was applied, the 98.33% confidence interval revealed a difference of at most 0.02 mA. However, threshold current intensities to elicit EMR were lower for the needle-nerve contact position than for the control position (0.1 milliseconds: 0.28 [0.26-0.32] mA; 0.3 milliseconds: 0.20 [0.16-0.22] mA; 1.0 milliseconds: 0.12 [0.10-0.14] mA). The confidence interval for differences suggests minimal current intensity to elicit a motor response that cannot reliably discern between a needle-nerve contact from intraneural needle placement. In addition, an EMR at threshold currents <0.2 mA (irrespective of the applied pulse duration) indicates intraneural needle placement or needle-nerve contact.
    Anesthesia and analgesia 11/2013; · 3.08 Impact Factor