Literature DB >> 19299809

Current threshold for nerve stimulation depends on electrical impedance of the tissue: a study of ultrasound-guided electrical nerve stimulation of the median nerve.

Axel R Sauter1, Michael S Dodgson, Håvard Kalvøy, Sverre Grimnes, Audun Stubhaug, Oivind Klaastad.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding the mechanisms causing variation in current thresholds for electrical nerve stimulation may improve the safety and success rate of peripheral nerve blocks. Electrical impedance of the tissue surrounding a nerve may affect the response to nerve stimulation. In this volunteer study, we investigated the relationship between impedance and current threshold needed to obtain a neuromuscular response.
METHODS: Electrical nerve stimulation and impedance measurements were performed for the median nerve in the axilla and at the elbow in 29 volunteers. The needletip was positioned at a distance of 5, 2.5, and 0 mm from the nerve as judged by ultrasound. Impulse widths of 0.1 and 0.3 ms were used for nerve stimulation.
RESULTS: A significant inverse relationship between impedance and current threshold was found at the elbow, at nerve-to-needle distances of 5 and 2.5 mm (P = 0.001 and P = 0.036). Impedance values were significantly lower in the axilla (mean 21.1, sd 9.7 kohm) than at the elbow (mean 36.6, sd 13.4 kohm) (P < 0.001). Conversely, current thresholds for nerve stimulation were significantly higher in the axilla than at the elbow (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.024). A mean ratio of 1.82 was found for the measurements of current thresholds with 0.1 versus 0.3 ms impulse duration.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate an inverse relationship between impedance measurements and current thresholds and suggest that current settings used for nerve stimulation may require adjustment based on the tissue type. Further studies should be performed to investigate the clinical impact of our findings.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19299809     DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181957d84

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


  8 in total

1.  Detection of intraneural needle-placement with multiple frequency bioimpedance monitoring: a novel method.

Authors:  Håvard Kalvøy; Axel R Sauter
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 2.  [Localization of peripheral nerves. Success and safety with electrical nerve stimulation].

Authors:  M Neuburger; U Schwemmer; T Volk; W Gogarten; P Kessler; T Steinfeldt
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  [Regional anesthesia: tradition and innovation].

Authors:  U Schwemmer
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  [Electrical nerve stimulation for peripheral nerve blocks. Ultrasound-guided needle positioning and effect of 5% glucose injection].

Authors:  M Habicher; M Ocken; J Birnbaum; T Volk
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.041

5.  Supramaximal Stimulus Intensity as a Diagnostic Tool in Chronic Demyelinating Neuropathy.

Authors:  Vivien Parker; Jodi Warman Chardon; Julie Mills; Claire Goldsmith; Pierre R Bourque
Journal:  Neurosci J       Date:  2016-06-16

6.  Real-time ultrasound-guided comparison of adductor canal block and psoas compartment block combined with sciatic nerve block in laparoscopic knee surgeries.

Authors:  Medhat M Messeha
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2016 May-Aug

7.  Diabetic neuropathy increases stimulation threshold during popliteal sciatic nerve block.

Authors:  S Heschl; B Hallmann; T Zilke; G Gemes; M Schoerghuber; M Auer-Grumbach; F Quehenberger; P Lirk; Q Hogan; M Rigaud
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 9.166

8.  Comparison of ultrasound-guided and nerve stimulator-guided interscalene blocks as a sole anesthesia in shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Jung A Lim; Shin Yeung Sung; Ji Hyeon Lee; So Young Lee; Sang Gyu Kwak; Taeha Ryu; Woon Seok Roh
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 1.817

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.