Literature DB >> 15836683

Efficacy of vertical infraclavicular plexus block vs. modified axillary plexus block: a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study.

F M Heid1, J Jage, M Guth, N Bauwe, A M Brambrink.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite containing severe risks, infraclavicular approaches to the brachial plexus gained increasing popularity. Likewise, the vertical infraclavicular plexus block improved anesthesia compared to the standard axillary approach but contains the risk of pneumothorax. Therefore we modified the standard axillary technique by inserting a proximal directed catheter, referred to as a high axillary plexus block. We prospectively compared quality and onset of neural blockade after vertical infraclavicular plexus block (VIP) and high axillary plexus block (HAP) in two randomized groups (30 patients in each).
METHODS: In group VIP the insulated needle was inserted midway between the ventral process of the acromion and the jugular notch. In group HAP, first an axillary needle was placed. Through this a stimulating catheter was inserted in a proximal direction (10-15 cm); correct placement was confirmed by nerve stimulation. All patients received 40 ml ropivacaine 0.75% (300 mg). Discriminating between analgesia and anesthesia, a blinded observer assessed progression of neural blockade every 5 min for 60 min by pin prick. Incomplete blocks were supplemented 60 min after initial injection.
RESULTS: All patients in both groups demonstrated sufficient surgical anesthesia. No patient needed systemic supplementation or general anesthesia. However, vertical infraclavicular plexus block indicated superior anesthesia compared to high axillary plexus block, regarding musculocutaneous, axillary and radial nerve, which were completely blocked with a higher success rate and in a shorter time interval (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: While both techniques provide sufficient surgical anesthesia, vertical infraclavicular plexus block demonstrated a partially higher success rate and a faster onset than high axillary plexus block.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15836683     DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2005.00701.x

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


  4 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Comparison of RIVA and infraclavicular block in forearm and hand surgery.

Authors:  Zubeyir Sivrikaya; Guldem Turan; Reyhan Cetiner; Dilek Subasi; Gulcin Ozturk; Asu Ozgultekin; Osman Ekinci
Journal:  North Clin Istanb       Date:  2017-08-26
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.