A Randomized Study of the Effectiveness of Suprascapular Nerve Block in Patient Satisfaction and Outcome After Arthroscopic Subacromial Decompression
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of the suprascapular nerve (SSN) block in pain reduction after arthroscopic subacromial decompression operations and its influence on patient satisfaction. Furthermore, we wanted to evaluate whether better perioperative pain management could positively influence postoperative shoulder function.
In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial, 3 groups of patients--each with 15 participants--were treated with SSN block (10 mL of 1% ropivacaine), placebo, or a subacromial infiltration of local anesthesia (20 mL of 1% ropivacaine). Preoperative and postoperative pain was evaluated with a visual analog scale. Functional outcome was measured by the Constant-Murley score, and patient satisfaction was measured anecdotally by interview 2 days, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks after surgery.
The SSN group reported significantly lower levels of postoperative pain, required significantly less analgesia, had better range of motion, and had higher levels of postoperative satisfaction in comparison to the subacromial infiltration group and placebo group.
Patients treated with SSN blocks had less pain overall, which led to a decreased need for analgesics in comparison to the subacromial infiltration and placebo groups. Furthermore, patients in the SSN-blocked group achieved better postoperative ROM and were significantly more satisfied after surgery.
Available from: Ramprasad Sripada
- "The results showed that from day 1 to day 3 the suprascapular group had significantly better pain scores; however, pain score differences between the groups were relatively small. Jeske et al. conducted a randomized study of 45 patients who had arthroscopic subacromial decompressions performed . The patients were placed in 3 groups: placebo (suprascapular nerve block with 10 mL of 0.9% saline), suprascapular nerve block with 10 mL of 1% ropivacaine, or subacromial infiltration with 20 mL of 1% ropivacaine. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The article reviews the current literature regarding shoulder anesthesia and analgesia. Techniques and outcomes are presented that summarize our present understanding of regional anesthesia for the shoulder. Shoulder procedures producing mild to moderate pain may be managed with a single-injection interscalene block. However, studies support that moderate to severe pain, lasting for several days is best managed with a continuous interscalene block. This may cause increased extremity numbness, but will provide greater analgesia, reduce supplemental opioid consumption, improve sleep quality and patient satisfaction. In comparison to the nerve stimulation technique, ultrasound can reduce the volume of local anesthetic needed to produce an effective interscalene block. However, it has not been shown that ultrasound offers a definitive benefit in preventing major complications. The evidence indicates that the suprascapular and/or axillary nerve blocks are not as effective as an interscalene block. However in patients who are not candidates for the interscalene block, these blocks may provide a useful alternative for short-term pain relief. There is substantial evidence showing that subacromial and intra-articular injections provide little clinical benefit for postoperative analgesia. Given that these injections may be associated with irreversible chondrotoxicity, the injections are not presently recommended.
Anesthesiology Research and Practice 06/2012; 2012(4):971963. DOI:10.1155/2012/971963
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 10/2011; 27(10):1313-6. DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2011.07.006 · 3.21 Impact Factor
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 12/2011; 27(12):1599-601. DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2011.10.005 · 3.21 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.