Efficacy of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block: a comparative study with nerve stimulator-guided method.

Department of Anesthesiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou.
Chang Gung medical journal 07/2005; 28(6):396-402.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of axillary brachial plexus block using an ultrasound-guided method with the nerve stimulator-guided method. We also compared the efficacy of ultrasound-guided single-injection with those of double-injection for the quality of the block.
Ninety patients scheduled for surgery of the forearm or hand were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 30 per group), i.e., nerve stimulator-guided and double-injection (ND) group, ultrasound-guided and double-injection (UD) group, and ultrasound-guided and single-injection (US) group. Each patient received 0.5 ml kg(-1) of 1.5% lidocaine with 5 mg kg(-1) epinephrine. Patients in the ND group received half the volume of lidocaine injected near the median and radial nerves after identification using a nerve stimulator. Patients in the UD group received half the volume of lidocaine injected around the lateral and medial aspects of the axillary artery, while those in the US group were given the entire volume near the lateral aspect of the axillary artery. The extent of the sensory blockade of the seven nerves and motor blockades of the four nerves were assessed 40 min after the performance of axillary brachial plexus block.
Seventy percent of the patients in the ND and US groups as well as 73% of the patients in the UD group obtained satisfactory sensory and motor blockades. The success rate of performing the block was 90% in patients in the ND and UD groups and 70% in the US group. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the ND group (20%) compared with that in the US group and the UD group (0%; p = 0.03).
Ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block, using either single- or double-injection technique, provided excellent sensory and motor blockades with fewer adverse events.

Download full-text


Available from: Yung-fong Tsai, Jul 02, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: R egional anesthesia has traditionally been performed with the help of a single modality, which has depended on the availability of technology at the time of performance of these blocks. The transitions from pares-thesia-guided to nerve stimulation to ultrasound-guided nerve blocks have helped advance regional anesthesia as a science rather than an art, and have taken it to a higher level of sophistication. However, the visual information ob-tained with the use of ultrasonography remains subject to interpretation by the user and, consequently, is limited by the ability to optimize the sonographic image, variations in formal training of applied ultrasound physics, and overall experience in ultrasonography. Even though ultrasound visualization by itself is presumably associated with minimal risks, the safety claimed by ultrasound enthusiasts may not necessarily result in the safest clinical practice. There is current debate as to whether the use of nerve stimulation or ultra-sonography is superior as a nerve localization instrument for regional anes-thesia; there is also a proposal that the use of dual or multiple guidance modalities may further expand the opportunities to employ regional anesthesia versus use of a single method. Regional anesthesia reliably works if the correct amount of the correct local anesthetic is placed within the correct fascial plane in correct proximity to the nerve. Nerve stimulation is generally able to provide one or two of these objectively, that is, depositing a local anesthetic near the nerve to be blocked. Anesthesiologists traditionally have used larger doses of local anesthetics with this technique to ascertain block success, as it is not possible to stimulate the nerve again after even a small dose of local anesthetic has been deposited. Ultrasonography does not solve all of these problems but it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    Advances in Anesthesia 05/2011; 28(1):187-210. DOI:10.1016/j.aan.2010.08.002
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In order to compare conventional interscalene brachial plexus block (ISBPB) using surface landmarks and nerve stimulation to ultrasound-guided blocks for shoulder surgery, 60 patients, 33 males and 27 females, ranging in age between 16 - 85 years were included in this prospective study and randomized into 2 matched groups, 30 patients each. Group A using nerve stimulator (NS) alone and group B guided by 2-dimensional ultrasound (US) as well. Prilocaine 1 % was used for the block while ropivacaine 0.2 % was used for the postoperative patient controlled analgesia (PCA). The time taken to stimulate the plexus and the onset of block were recorded. The visual analogue scale and regain of motor power were checked at regular intervals. Patient satisfaction while inserting the needle, during and after surgery was also questioned. The time spent to detect the brachial plexus and inject the local anaesthetic was not significantly varying between both groups (p = 0.3). Although in more than half of the patients in group B we needed to change the needle position once (n: 13) or twice (n: 4), a successful motor response from the first trial was achieved in all but one patient in group A. In this patient, however, we were only able to locate the plexus after using US. There was no significant difference as regards the time taken for the block to start (p = 0.2). No significant differences existed in postoperative pain, regain of motor power, and patients’ satisfaction at all time intervals. Complications were nearly equally divided between both groups and were transient. We conclude that ISBPB is equally high effective using nerve stimulation and ultrasound guidance. No advantage could be attributed to one or the other technique if the blocks are performed by anaesthesiologist experienced in both techniques. Electric nerve stimulation and ultrasound guidance should be regarded as complementary rather than alternative tools.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Administration of local anesthetics at body temperature has been reported to shorten the onset time of regional block; however, studies examining the effects of warmed lidocaine on the onset of epidural anesthesia are limited. Here, we ascertain whether warming lidocaine solution to body temperature shortens the time to onset of epidural anesthesia. Eighty patients were randomly allocated into two groups of equal size. Both received 16 ml of lidocaine solution injected via the epidural route at the L4- 5 interspace, with one group receiving the solution at room temperature (RT, 18 degrees Celsius) and the other receiving the solution warmed to body temperature (BT, 36 degrees Celsius). Sensory blocks at the T10, T12, and L3 dermatomes, perianal region, and upper level dermatomes were assessed by pinprick and their onset times recorded. Patients with incomplete anal sensory block were excluded. Seventy-seven patients were included for analysis. The pH value of the local anesthetic solution was significantly increased at BT compared to RT (6.57 +/- 0.11 vs. 6.47 +/- 0.11, p < 0.05). Significantly shorter onset times of sensory block were observed at the T12 (10.03 +/- 3.55 vs. 11.71 +/- 3.76 min) and L3 (7.49 +/- 3.19 vs. 9.92 +/- 3.46 min) dermatomes for the BT compared to the RT group (p < 0.005). The onset time of sensory block at the anal region was also shorter in the BT than the RT group (11.54 +/- 4.35 vs. 12.50 +/- 4.06 min, p < 0.05). No differences between groups with respect to gender, age, height, weight, visual analogue pain score, upper sensory level, or adverse events were observed. Administration of lidocaine at BT compared to RT shortens the onset time of sensory block in epidural anesthesia with no associated adverse effects.
    Chang Gung medical journal 32(6):643-9.