BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study compared single- and double-injection ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper extremity surgery. METHODS:Eighty-eight patients were randomly allocated to receive a single-injection (n = 44) or double-injection (n = 44) ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block. The main outcome variable was the onset time. A blinded observer recorded the onset time, block-related pain scores, success rate (surgical anesthesia), and the incidence of complications. Performance time (defined as the sum of imaging and needling times) and the number of needle passes were also recorded during the performance of the block. The total anesthesia-related time was defined as the sum of the performance and onset times. RESULTS: No differences in imaging, needling, performance, and onset and total anesthesia-related times were found between the 2 groups. There were no differences in the rate of surgical anesthesia (93.1%-97.7%). The number of needle passes was also similar; however, the double-injection technique resulted in slightly less procedural discomfort (1.1 [SD, 1.6] vs 2.1 [SD, 2.1]; P = 0.021). There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The double-injection ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block provides no significant advantages compared with its single-injection counterpart.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study compared single- and double-injection ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper extremity surgery. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients were randomly allocated to receive a single-injection (n = 44) or double-injection (n = 44) ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block. The main outcome variable was the onset time. A blinded observer recorded the onset time, block-related pain scores, success rate (surgical anesthesia), and the incidence of complications. Performance time (defined as the sum of imaging and needling times) and the number of needle passes were also recorded during the performance of the block. The total anesthesia-related time was defined as the sum of the performance and onset times. RESULTS: No differences in imaging, needling, performance, and onset and total anesthesia-related times were found between the 2 groups. There were no differences in the rate of surgical anesthesia (93.1%-97.7%). The number of needle passes was also similar; however, the double-injection technique resulted in slightly less procedural discomfort (1.1 [SD, 1.6] vs 2.1 [SD, 2.1]; P = 0.021). There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The double-injection ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block provides no significant advantages compared with its single-injection counterpart.
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
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