BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Stimulating catheter-guided perineural placement may potentially increase the success rate and quality of continuous femoral nerve block as compared with a nonstimulating catheter technique. These hypotheses have not been rigorously tested. METHODS:Twenty volunteers underwentplacement of bilateral femoral nerve catheters in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. For each side, a stimulating needle was advanced until quadriceps contractions were obtained at < or =0.5 mA. On one side, a stimulating catheter was advanced 4 to 5 cm beyond the needle tip while eliciting quadriceps contractions via the catheter. If quadriceps contractions decreased or disappeared, the catheter position was adjusted until quadriceps contractions could be elicited at < or =0.5 mA. On the contralateral side, an identical catheter was advanced 4 to 5 cm beyond the needle tip without attempts to elicit quadriceps contractions via the catheter. After bolus injection of 10 mL lidocaine 1%, ropivacaine 0.2% at 10 mL/h was continuously infused through both catheters for 4 hours. Success of femoral block was defined as loss of sensation to cold and pinprick stimuli. Quality of successful block was determined by tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation and force dynamometry of quadriceps strength. RESULTS:Block success was 100% via the stimulating catheters versus 85% via the nonstimulating catheters (P =.07). Overall tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation (P =.009) and overall depth of motor block (P =.03) was significantly higher in the stimulating catheter-guided femoral nerve blocks. CONCLUSIONS: In this volunteer study, there was no statistically significant difference in block success between the two techniques. However, stimulating catheter-guided placement provided an increased overall quality of continuous femoral perineural blockade. Further studies are needed to verify these observations in the clinical setting.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Stimulating catheter-guided perineural placement may potentially increase the success rate and quality of continuous femoral nerve block as compared with a nonstimulating catheter technique. These hypotheses have not been rigorously tested. METHODS: Twenty volunteers underwent placement of bilateral femoral nerve catheters in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. For each side, a stimulating needle was advanced until quadriceps contractions were obtained at < or =0.5 mA. On one side, a stimulating catheter was advanced 4 to 5 cm beyond the needle tip while eliciting quadriceps contractions via the catheter. If quadriceps contractions decreased or disappeared, the catheter position was adjusted until quadriceps contractions could be elicited at < or =0.5 mA. On the contralateral side, an identical catheter was advanced 4 to 5 cm beyond the needle tip without attempts to elicit quadriceps contractions via the catheter. After bolus injection of 10 mL lidocaine 1%, ropivacaine 0.2% at 10 mL/h was continuously infused through both catheters for 4 hours. Success of femoral block was defined as loss of sensation to cold and pinprick stimuli. Quality of successful block was determined by tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation and force dynamometry of quadriceps strength. RESULTS: Block success was 100% via the stimulating catheters versus 85% via the nonstimulating catheters (P =.07). Overall tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation (P =.009) and overall depth of motor block (P =.03) was significantly higher in the stimulating catheter-guided femoral nerve blocks. CONCLUSIONS: In this volunteer study, there was no statistically significant difference in block success between the two techniques. However, stimulating catheter-guided placement provided an increased overall quality of continuous femoral perineural blockade. Further studies are needed to verify these observations in the clinical setting.
Authors: Brian M Ilfeld; Navparkash S Sandhu; Vanessa J Loland; Sarah J Madison; Preetham J Suresh; Edward R Mariano; Michael L Bishop; Alexandra K Schwartz; Daniel K Lee Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Maria Bauer; Lu Wang; Olusegun K Onibonoje; Chad Parrett; Daniel I Sessler; Loran Mounir-Soliman; Sherif Zaky; Viktor Krebs; Leonard T Buller; Michael C Donohue; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley; Brian M Ilfeld Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Ehab Farag; Abdulkadir Atim; Raktim Ghosh; Maria Bauer; Thilak Sreenivasalu; Michael Kot; Andrea Kurz; Jarrod E Dalton; Edward J Mascha; Loran Mounir-Soliman; Sherif Zaky; Wael Ali Sakr Esa; Belinda L Udeh; Wael Barsoum; Daniel I Sessler Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: S J Madison; A M Monahan; R R Agarwal; T J Furnish; E J Mascha; Z Xu; M C Donohue; A C Morgan; B M Ilfeld Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Brian M Ilfeld; Vanessa J Loland; NavParkash S Sandhu; Preetham J Suresh; Michael J Bishop; Michael C Donohue; Eliza J Ferguson; Sarah J Madison Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Sarah J Madison; Julie Humsi; Vanessa J Loland; Preetham J Suresh; Navparkash S Sandhu; Michael J Bishop; Michael C Donohue; Dong Nie; Eliza J Ferguson; Anya C Morgan; Brian M Ilfeld Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Edward R Mariano; Vanessa J Loland; NavParkash S Sandhu; Michael L Bishop; Daniel K Lee; Alexandra K Schwartz; Paul J Girard; Eliza J Ferguson; Brian M Ilfeld Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 5.063