Literature DB >> 21425511

Posterior versus anterolateral approach interscalene catheter placement: a prospective randomized trial.

Michael J Fredrickson1, Craig M Ball, Adam J Dalgleish.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Two distinctly different approaches to interscalene catheter placement have been in common use for close to a decade. This prospective randomized study tested the hypothesis that interscalene catheters placed using the posterior approach would provide a more effective analgesia after shoulder surgery compared with catheters placed using the anterolateral approach.
METHODS: A total of 110 patients presenting for elective shoulder surgery were randomly assigned to receive an ultrasound-guided posterior (n=54) or anterolateral (n=56) interscalene catheter with 20 mL of ropivacaine 0.375% administered preoperatively via the catheter before surgery under general anesthesia. Ropivacaine 0.2% at 2 mL/hr with on-demand hourly 5-mL boluses was continued for more than 48 hrs with tramadol available as rescue. Patients were questioned in the recovery room, at 24 and 48 hrs after surgery, for pain, ropivacaine bolus, and tramadol consumption.
RESULTS: Patients were more frequently free of pain in the recovery room in the anterolateral group compared with the posterior group (mean, 91%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-99% versus mean, 61%; 95% CI, 48%-74%; P=0.005). Rescue tramadol consumption was higher for the posterior group during the first but not during the second 24 hrs after surgery (day 1/day 2: 48%versus 27%, P=0.017 / 35% versus 27%, P=0.27). Postoperative pain, ropivacaine bolus consumption, numbness, weakness, neck discomfort, and satisfaction were similar between groups. Catheter threading difficulty was more common (33% versus 13%, P=0.012), and catheter placement time was longer (median, 9 min; interquartile range, 7.5-10 min versus median, 6.5 min; interquartile range, 6-8 min; P<0.0001) in the posterior group.
CONCLUSIONS: Anterolateral interscalene catheters perform more effectively and are procedurally more easily placed compared with catheters placed using the posterior approach.
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21425511     DOI: 10.1097/aap.0b013e31820d5ee6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reg Anesth Pain Med        ISSN: 1098-7339            Impact factor:   6.288


  6 in total

1.  The role of continuous peripheral nerve blocks.

Authors:  José Aguirre; Alicia Del Moral; Irina Cobo; Alain Borgeat; Stephan Blumenthal
Journal:  Anesthesiol Res Pract       Date:  2012-06-18

2.  Infusion Methods for Continuous Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block for Postoperative Pain Control after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

Authors:  Gyeong Jo Byeon; Sang Wook Shin; Ji Uk Yoon; Eun Jung Kim; Seung Hoon Baek; Hyun Su Ri
Journal:  Korean J Pain       Date:  2015-07-01

Review 3.  A Systematic Review of Postoperative Pain Outcome Measurements Utilised in Regional Anesthesia Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  E Pushpanathan; T Setty; B Carvalho; P Sultan
Journal:  Anesthesiol Res Pract       Date:  2018-07-29

4.  Perioperative management of interscalene block in patients with lung disease.

Authors:  Eric S Schwenk; Kishor Gandhi; Eugene R Viscusi
Journal:  Case Rep Anesthesiol       Date:  2013-11-28

5.  Ultrasound-Guided Out-of-Plane vs. In-Plane Interscalene Catheters: A Randomized, Prospective Study.

Authors:  Eric S Schwenk; Kishor Gandhi; Jaime L Baratta; Marc Torjman; Richard H Epstein; Jaeyoon Chung; Benjamin A Vaghari; David Beausang; Elird Bojaxhi; Bernadette Grady
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2015-12-05

6.  Distance of catheter tip dislocation in continuous interscalene brachial plexus block.

Authors:  Tatsuya Abe; Takashi Fujiwara; Yoshinori Kamiya
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-07-05
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.