Ki Jinn Chin1, Husni Alakkad, Javier E Cubillos. 1. Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto Western Hospital, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 2S8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia comprising axillary block of the brachial plexus is a common anaesthetic technique for distal upper limb surgery. This is an update of a review first published in 2006 and updated in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative effects (benefits and harms) of three injection techniques (single, double and multiple) of axillary block of the brachial plexus for distal upper extremity surgery. We considered these effects primarily in terms of anaesthetic effectiveness; the complication rate (neurological and vascular); and pain and discomfort caused by performance of the block. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists of trials. We contacted trial authors. The date of the last search was March 2013 (updated from March 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared double with single-injection techniques, multiple with single-injection techniques, or multiple with double-injection techniques for axillary block in adults undergoing surgery of the distal upper limb. We excluded trials using ultrasound-guided techniques. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Independent study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed by at least two investigators. We undertook meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: The 21 included trials involved a total of 2148 participants who received regional anaesthesia for hand, wrist, forearm or elbow surgery. Risk of bias assessment indicated that trial design and conduct were generally adequate; the most common areas of weakness were in blinding and allocation concealment.Eight trials comparing double versus single injections showed a statistically significant decrease in primary anaesthesia failure (risk ratio (RR 0.51), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.85). Subgroup analysis by method of nerve location showed that the effect size was greater when neurostimulation was used rather than the transarterial technique.Eight trials comparing multiple with single injections showed a statistically significant decrease in primary anaesthesia failure (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.44) and of incomplete motor block (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96) in the multiple injection group.Eleven trials comparing multiple with double injections showed a statistically significant decrease in primary anaesthesia failure (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.40) and of incomplete motor block (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85) in the multiple injection group.Tourniquet pain was significantly reduced with multiple injections compared with double injections (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84). Otherwise there were no statistically significant differences between groups in any of the three comparisons on secondary analgesia failure, complications and patient discomfort. The time for block performance was significantly shorter for single and double injections compared with multiple injections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that multiple-injection techniques using nerve stimulation for axillary plexus block produce more effective anaesthesia than either double or single-injection techniques. However, there was insufficient evidence for a significant difference in other outcomes, including safety.
BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia comprising axillary block of the brachial plexus is a common anaesthetic technique for distal upper limb surgery. This is an update of a review first published in 2006 and updated in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative effects (benefits and harms) of three injection techniques (single, double and multiple) of axillary block of the brachial plexus for distal upper extremity surgery. We considered these effects primarily in terms of anaesthetic effectiveness; the complication rate (neurological and vascular); and pain and discomfort caused by performance of the block. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists of trials. We contacted trial authors. The date of the last search was March 2013 (updated from March 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared double with single-injection techniques, multiple with single-injection techniques, or multiple with double-injection techniques for axillary block in adults undergoing surgery of the distal upper limb. We excluded trials using ultrasound-guided techniques. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Independent study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed by at least two investigators. We undertook meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: The 21 included trials involved a total of 2148 participants who received regional anaesthesia for hand, wrist, forearm or elbow surgery. Risk of bias assessment indicated that trial design and conduct were generally adequate; the most common areas of weakness were in blinding and allocation concealment.Eight trials comparing double versus single injections showed a statistically significant decrease in primary anaesthesia failure (risk ratio (RR 0.51), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.85). Subgroup analysis by method of nerve location showed that the effect size was greater when neurostimulation was used rather than the transarterial technique.Eight trials comparing multiple with single injections showed a statistically significant decrease in primary anaesthesia failure (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.44) and of incomplete motor block (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96) in the multiple injection group.Eleven trials comparing multiple with double injections showed a statistically significant decrease in primary anaesthesia failure (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.40) and of incomplete motor block (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85) in the multiple injection group.Tourniquet pain was significantly reduced with multiple injections compared with double injections (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84). Otherwise there were no statistically significant differences between groups in any of the three comparisons on secondary analgesia failure, complications and patient discomfort. The time for block performance was significantly shorter for single and double injections compared with multiple injections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that multiple-injection techniques using nerve stimulation for axillary plexus block produce more effective anaesthesia than either double or single-injection techniques. However, there was insufficient evidence for a significant difference in other outcomes, including safety.