Liu FC, Liou JT, Tsai YF, Li AH, Day YY, Hui YL, Lui PW. 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, Aug 25, 2015
  • Source
    • "Soeding et al [90] US vs Landmark and paresthesia (40) US quicker and more complete sensory and motor block Less paresthesia with US Liu et al [93] Three groups: US or PNS with double injections vs US with single injection (90) "
    [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: Resumen Se presenta el caso de una paciente con traumatismo múltiple llevada al hospital por un intento de autolisis por precipitación. Presentaba traumatismo facial y cra- neal, junto con fracturas bilaterales de ambos antebra- zos que requirieron osteosíntesis urgente. Los neurociru- janos solicitaron que el nivel de consciencia fuera mantenido para valoración frecuente, por lo que se eligió un bloqueo axilar bilateral del plexo braquial. El proce- dimiento fue realizado mediante neuroestimulación en el brazo izquierdo, con búsqueda de triple respuesta (ner- vios radial, mediano y musculocutáneo), y guiado por ultrasonidos y neuroestimulación doble (nervios media- no y radial) en el brazo derecho. La cirugía se desarro- lló sin incidencias. Al precisarse un bloqueo bilateral del plexo braquial, la localización de los nervios o raíces nerviosas con ultrasonidos junto con neuroestimulación, fue de gran utilidad en esta paciente. Ambas en conjun- ción y especialmente los ultrasonidos, podrían ser la téc- nica anestésica de elección en casos particulares debido a la imagen en tiempo real y la menor cantidad de anes- tésico local que parece requerirse para conseguir el blo- queo.
Show more