Literature DB >> 10593469

Lateral infraclavicular plexus block vs. axillary block for hand and forearm surgery.

S Kapral1, O Jandrasits, C Schabernig, R Likar, B Reddy, N Mayer, C Weinstabl.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the last few years infraclavicular plexus block has become a method of increasing interest. However, this block has been associated with high complication incidences and without advantage in the quality of blockade over the axillary approach. We prospectively studied 40 patients (ASA I-III) undergoing surgery of the forearm and hand, and investigated the performance of the lateral infraclavicular plexus block against an axillary paravascular block to evaluate the success rate as well as the extent and quality of blockade.
METHODS: Patients were randomized into two groups: group I (lateral infraclavicular approach; n=20) and group A (axillary approach; n=20). The lateral infraclavicular approach is a technique with the coracoid process (CP) as landmark. Alone the sagittal plane, the needle is inserted until contact with the CP. The needle is then withdrawn 2-3 mm and reinserted directly under the CP, until it contacts the brachial plexus sheath. Plexus blockade was performed using 40 ml of mepivacaine 1%. Quality of sensory and motor block was recorded selectively for each nerve distribution at close intervals for 6 h.
RESULTS: Successful block according to Vester-Andersen's criteria was achieved in 100% of group I and 85% of group A. In group I, a pronounced sensory and motor blockade of the musculocutaneous nerve was observed, while patients of group A had a weak block of this nerve. In group I, an additional spectrum of nerves (thoracodorsal, axillary and medial brachial cutaneous nerves) was involved compared to group A. There was no difference among groups in onset and duration of block.
CONCLUSION: Based on the safe landmark and feasibility of this procedure and the additional spectrum of nerve block achieved, the application of lateral infraclavicular technique has to be reconsidered in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10593469     DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-6576.1999.431013.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand        ISSN: 0001-5172            Impact factor:   2.105


  6 in total

Review 1.  Upper extremity regional anesthesia: essentials of our current understanding, 2008.

Authors:  Joseph M Neal; J C Gerancher; James R Hebl; Brian M Ilfeld; Colin J L McCartney; Carlo D Franco; Quinn H Hogan
Journal:  Reg Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2009 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.288

2.  Comparison of two approaches of infraclavicular brachial plexus block for orthopaedic surgery below mid-humerus.

Authors:  Vikas Trehan; Uma Srivastava; Aditya Kumar; Surekha Saxena; Chandra Sekar Singh; Ankit Darolia
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2010-05

3.  A randomized comparative study of efficacy of axillary and infraclavicular approaches for brachial plexus block for upper limb surgery using peripheral nerve stimulator.

Authors:  Vikram Uday Lahori; Anjana Raina; Smriti Gulati; Dinesh Kumar; Satya Dev Gupta
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2011-05

4.  The extent of blockade following axillary and infraclavicular approaches of brachial plexus block in uremic patients.

Authors:  Damla Sariguney; Ahmet Mahli; Demet Coskun
Journal:  J Clin Med Res       Date:  2012-01-17

5.  Infraclavicular brachial plexus block: Comparison of posterior cord stimulation with lateral or medial cord stimulation, a prospective double blinded study.

Authors:  Dushyant Sharma; Nidhi Srivastava; Sudhir Pawar; Rakesh Garg; Vijay Kumar Nagpal
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2013-04

6.  Comparison of the vertical and the highest point of shoulder methods in brachial plexus block.

Authors:  Kiritoglu S; Basaranoglu G; Comlekci M; Suren M; Erkalp K; Teker G; Saidoglu L
Journal:  Int J Biomed Sci       Date:  2009-03
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.