Thomas M Halaszynski1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. thomas.halaszynski@yale.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ultrasound-guidance is gaining tremendous popularity. There is growing evidence of value with emphasis on clinical relevance, but can ultrasound-guidance scientifically warrant changing the practice of upper extremity regional? The literature is searched to describe findings where ultrasound may reduce complication rates, reduce block performance times, and improve block efficacy and quality. RECENT FINDINGS: Ultrasound examination identified variations in anatomical positioning of C5-C7 roots in approximately half of all patients despite no deleterious effects on block efficacy. Anesthetic volumes in brachial plexus blockade may be reduced without compromise of effectiveness. However, even with reduced volumes injected into the interscalene space, respiratory compromise from effect(s) on the phrenic nerve may result in hemi-diaphragmatic paresis. Ultrasound-guidance may reduce discomfort during axillary block placement compared with neurostimulation or parasthesia. Nerve catheters may be highly effective and provide prolonged analgesia compared with single-shot injections. Infraclavicular catheters result in improved analgesia compared with supraclavicular catheters and multiple injections of local provide no advantage over single-shot infraclavicular blockade. Dexamethasone combined with local may extend analgesia following a single-injection interscalene or supraclavicular block. During interscalene blockade, intraepineurial injections may occur, but incidence of nerve injury remains low. Therefore, debate continues about intraepineurial injections. SUMMARY: Intraepineurial injection requires additional investigation. Conclusions have suggested reducing typical volumes (40 ml) of local with ultrasound-directed upper extremity blockade. Increased use of perineural catheters is being advocated for prolonged analgesia, but risk-to-benefit consequences need to always be considered.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ultrasound-guidance is gaining tremendous popularity. There is growing evidence of value with emphasis on clinical relevance, but can ultrasound-guidance scientifically warrant changing the practice of upper extremity regional? The literature is searched to describe findings where ultrasound may reduce complication rates, reduce block performance times, and improve block efficacy and quality. RECENT FINDINGS: Ultrasound examination identified variations in anatomical positioning of C5-C7 roots in approximately half of all patients despite no deleterious effects on block efficacy. Anesthetic volumes in brachial plexus blockade may be reduced without compromise of effectiveness. However, even with reduced volumes injected into the interscalene space, respiratory compromise from effect(s) on the phrenic nerve may result in hemi-diaphragmatic paresis. Ultrasound-guidance may reduce discomfort during axillary block placement compared with neurostimulation or parasthesia. Nerve catheters may be highly effective and provide prolonged analgesia compared with single-shot injections. Infraclavicular catheters result in improved analgesia compared with supraclavicular catheters and multiple injections of local provide no advantage over single-shot infraclavicular blockade. Dexamethasone combined with local may extend analgesia following a single-injection interscalene or supraclavicular block. During interscalene blockade, intraepineurial injections may occur, but incidence of nerve injury remains low. Therefore, debate continues about intraepineurial injections. SUMMARY: Intraepineurial injection requires additional investigation. Conclusions have suggested reducing typical volumes (40 ml) of local with ultrasound-directed upper extremity blockade. Increased use of perineural catheters is being advocated for prolonged analgesia, but risk-to-benefit consequences need to always be considered.
Authors: T Steinfeldt; T Volk; P Kessler; O Vicent; H Wulf; A Gottschalk; M Lange; P Schwartzkopf; E Hüttemann; R Tessmann; A Marx; J Souquet; D Häger; W Nagel; J Biscoping; U Schwemmer Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: David K Galos; David P Taormina; Alexander Crespo; David Y Ding; Anthony Sapienza; Sudheer Jain; Nirmal C Tejwani Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Lars Bergmann; Stefan Martini; Miriam Kesselmeier; Wolf Armbruster; Thomas Notheisen; Michael Adamzik; Rϋdiger Eichholz Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 2.217
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