Literature DB >> 15271744

Nerve stimulator-assisted evoked motor response predicts the latency and success of a single-injection sciatic block.

Radha Sukhani1, Antoun Nader, Kenneth D Candido, Robert Doty, Honorio T Benzon, Edward Yaghmour, Mark Kendall, Robert McCarthy.   

Abstract

Variable onset latency of single-injection sciatic nerve block (SNB) may result from drug deposition insufficiently close to all components of the nerve. We hypothesized that this variability is caused by the needle tip position relative to neural components, which is objectified by the type of evoked motor response (EMR) elicited before local anesthetic injection. One-hundred ASA I-II patients undergoing reconstructive ankle surgery received infragluteal-parabiceps SNB using 0.4 mL/kg (maximum 35 mL) of levobupivacaine 0.625%. The end-point for injection was the first elicited EMR: inversion (I), plantar flexion (PF), dorsiflexion (DF), or eversion (E) at 0.2-0.4 mA. The frequencies of the EMRs were: I 40%, PF 43%, E 14%, and DF 3%. SNB was considered complete if both tibial and common peroneal nerves were blocked and failed if either analgesia to pinprick was not observed at 30 min or anesthesia at 60 min. Patients with an EMR of I demonstrated shorter mean times (+/-95% confidence interval [CI]) to complete the block with 8.5 (95% CI, 6.2-10.8) min compared to 27.0 (95% CI, 20.6-33.4) min after PF (P < 0.001) and 30.4 (95% CI, 24.9-35.8) min after E (P < 0.001). No rescue blocks were required in group I compared with 24% (P = 0.001) and 71% (P < 0.001) of patients in groups PF and E, respectively. We conclude that EMR type during nerve stimulator-assisted single-injection SNB predicts latency and success of complete SNB because the observed EMR is related to the positioning of the needle tip relative to the tibial and common peroneal nerves.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15271744     DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000122823.50592.C9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  5 in total

1.  [Lateral approach to blockade of the sciatic nerve. Biometric data using magnetic resonance imaging].

Authors:  M Neuburger; E Hendrich; D Lang; A Dinse; F Wagner; W Freund; A Brinkmann; J Büttner
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 2.  [Electrical nerve stimulation for plexus and nerve blocks].

Authors:  J Birnbaum; E Klotz; G Bogusch; T Volk
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 3.  [Levobupivacaine for regional anesthesia. A systematic review].

Authors:  B Urbanek; S Kapral
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  The role of electrical stimulation in ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block: a retrospective study on how response pattern and minimal evoked current affect the resultant blockade.

Authors:  Kaoru Hara; Shinichi Sakura; Naomi Yokokawa
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 2.078

5.  Popliteal sciatic nerve block versus spinal anesthesia in hallux valgus surgery.

Authors:  Hyun-Jun Jeon; Young-Chul Park; Jong Nam Lee; Jun-Seok Bae
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2013-04-22
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.