Combination of intraneural injection and high injection pressure leads to fascicular injury and neurologic deficits in dogs

Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.12). 10/2004; 29(5):417-23. DOI: 10.1097/00115550-200409000-00005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Unintentional intraneural injection of local anesthetics may cause mechanical injury and pressure ischemia of the nerve fascicles. One study in small animals showed that intraneural injection may be associated with higher injection pressures. However, the pressure heralding an intraneural injection and the clinical consequences of such injections remain controversial. Our hypothesis is that an intraneural injection is associated with higher pressures and an increase in the risk of neurologic injury as compared with perineural injection.
Seven dogs of mixed breed (15-18 kg) were studied. After general endotracheal anesthesia, the sciatic nerves were exposed bilaterally. Under direct microscopic guidance, a 25-gauge needle was placed either perineurally (into the epineurium) or intraneurally (within the perineurium), and 4 mL of lidocaine 2% (1:250,000 epinephrine) was injected by using an automated infusion pump (4 mL/min). Injection pressure data were acquired by using an in-line manometer coupled to a computer via an analog digital conversion board. After injection, the animals were awakened and subjected to serial neurologic examinations. On the 7th day, the dogs were killed, the sciatic nerves were excised, and histologic examination was performed by pathologists blinded to the purpose of the study.
Whereas all perineural injections resulted in pressures < or =4 psi, the majority of intraneural injections were associated with high pressures (25-45 psi) at the beginning of the injection. Normal motor function returned 3 hours after all injections associated with low injection pressures (< or =11 psi), whereas persistent motor deficits were observed in all 4 animals having high injection pressures (> or =25 psi). Histologic examination showed destruction of neural architecture and degeneration of axons in all 4 sciatic nerves receiving high-pressure injections.
High injection pressures at the onset of injection may indicate an intraneural needle placement and lead to severe fascicular injury and persistent neurologic deficits. If these results are applicable to clinical practice, avoiding excessive injection pressure during nerve block administration may help to reduce the risk of neurologic injury.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Electrical impedance measurements have been used to detect intraneural needle placement, but there is still a lack of precision with this method. The purpose of the study was to develop a method for the discrimination of nerve tissue from other tissue types based on multiple frequency impedance measurements. Impedance measurements with 25 different frequencies between 1.26 and 398 kHz were obtained in eight pigs while placing the tip of a stimulation needle within the sciatic nerve and in other tissues. Various impedance variables and measurement frequencies were tested for tissue discrimination. Best tissue discrimination was obtained by using three different impedance parameters with optimal measurement frequencies: Modulus (126 kHz), Phase angle (40 kHz) and the Delta of the phase angle (between 126 and 158 kHz). These variables were combined in a Compound variable C. The area under the curve in a receiver operating characteristic was consecutively increased for the Modulus (78 %), Phase angle (86 %), Delta of the phase angle (94 %), and the Compound variable C (97 %), indicating highest specificity and sensitivity for C. An algorithm based on C was implemented in a real-time feasibility test and used in an additional test animal to demonstrate our new method. Discrimination between nerve tissue and other tissue types was improved by combining several impedance variables at multiple measurement frequencies.
    International Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 04/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10877-015-9698-3 · 1.45 Impact Factor
  • Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion 03/2015; 62(3):121-124. DOI:10.1016/j.redar.2015.01.006
  • Source