Literature DB >> 19419356

A comparison of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular blocks for upper extremity surgery.

Z J Koscielniak-Nielsen1, B S Frederiksen, H Rasmussen, L Hesselbjerg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US)-guided supraclavicular or infraclavicular blocks are commonly used for upper extremity surgery. The aims of this randomized study were to compare the block performance and onset times, effectiveness, incidence of adverse events and patient's acceptance of US-guided supraclavicular or infraclavicular blocks. We hypothesized that the supraclavicular approach, being more superficial and easier to visualize using a 10 MHz transducer, will produce a faster and a more extensive sensory block.
METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients were randomized to two equal groups: supraclavicular (S) and infraclavicular (I). Each patient received a mixture containing equal volumes of ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml and mepivacaine 20 mg/ml with adrenaline 5 microg/ml, 0.5 ml/kg body weight (minimum 30 ml, maximum 50 ml). The sensory score (anaesthesia--2 points, analgesia--1 point and pain--0 point) of the seven terminal nerves was assessed every 10 min. Patients were declared ready for surgery when they had an effective surgical block--anaesthesia or analgesia of the five nerves below the elbow. Thirty minutes after the block, the unblocked nerves were supplemented. The block performance and latency times, surgical effectiveness, adverse events and patient's acceptance were recorded.
RESULTS: Significantly more patients in the I group were ready for surgery 20 and 30 min after the block. The mean block performance time was 5.7 min in the S group and 5.0 min in the I group (NS). Block effectiveness was superior in the I group: 93% vs. 78% in the S group (P=0.017). The S group patients had a significantly poorer block of the median and ulnar nerves, but a better block of the axillary nerve. Sensory scores at 10, 20 and 30 min were not significantly different. Thirty-two patients in the S group vs. nine patients in the I group experienced transient adverse events (P<0.0001). Patients' acceptance of the block was similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Infraclavicular block had a faster onset, better surgical effectiveness and fewer adverse events. Block performance time and patients' acceptance of the procedure were similar in both groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19419356     DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2009.01909.x

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


  11 in total

1.  [Perivascular brachial plexus block. Ultrasound versus nerve stimulator].

Authors:  T Geiser; D Lang; M Neuburger; B Ott; P Augat; J Büttner
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  To what extent can local anesthetics be reduced for infraclavicular block with ultrasound guidance?

Authors:  G Eren; E Altun; Y Pektas; Y Polat; H Cetingok; G Demir; D Bilgi; Y Tekdos; M Dogan
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2014-08-08       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  [Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia: best practice upper extremities].

Authors:  T Ermert; C Goeters
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  Can we gain an advantage by combining distal median, radial and ulnar nerve blocks with supraclavicular block? A randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Basak Ceyda Meco; Menekse Ozcelik; Derya Gokmen Oztuna; Mehmet Armangil; Cigdem Yildirim Guclu; Sanem Cakar Turhan; Feyhan Okten
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 2.078

5.  Low-Volume Brachial Plexus Block Providing Surgical Anesthesia for Distal Arm Surgery Comparing Supraclavicular, Infraclavicular, and Axillary Approach: A Randomized Observer Blind Trial.

Authors:  Mojgan Vazin; Kenneth Jensen; Danja L Kristensen; Mathias Hjort; Katrine Tanggaard; Manoj K Karmakar; Thomas F Bendtsen; Jens Børglum
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  A randomised comparative evaluation of supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches to brachial plexus block for upper limb surgeries using both ultrasound and nerve stimulator.

Authors:  Ranganathan Jothi Abhinaya; Rajagopalan Venkatraman; Palanisamy Matheswaran; Govindarajan Sivarajan
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2017-07

7.  Comparison of morphine, dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as an adjuvant to ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block for postoperative analgesia-a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Rajagopalan Venkatraman; Anand Pushparani; Krishnamoorthy Karthik; Prabuvel Nandhini
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2021-04-10

Review 8.  Supraclavicular vs. Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Nerve Blocks: Clinical, Pharmacological, and Anatomical Considerations.

Authors:  Alan D Kaye; Varsha Allampalli; Paul Fisher; Aaron J Kaye; Aaron Tran; Elyse M Cornett; Farnad Imani; Amber N Edinoff; Soudabeh Djalali Motlagh; Richard D Urman
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2021-10-31

9.  A comparison of infraclavicular and supraclavicular approaches to the brachial plexus using neurostimulation.

Authors:  Chun Woo Yang; Hee Uk Kwon; Choon-Kyu Cho; Sung Mee Jung; Po-Soon Kang; Eun-Su Park; Youn Moo Heo; Helen Ki Shinn
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2010-03-29

10.  Lack of Sex Difference in Minimum Local Analgesic Concentration of Ropivacaine for Ultrasound-Guided Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block.

Authors:  Qingqing Pei; Yanqing Yang; Qin Liu; Zhiyou Peng; Zhiying Feng
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2015-11-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.