Xiuhong Cao1, Xiang Zhao2, Jin Xu2, Zhengmei Liu2, Quan Li2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sciatic nerve block is widely used for anesthesia and analgesia in lower limb surgery, traditional method used for sciatic nerve block is nerve stimulation guidance. Whether the use of ultrasound-guided technology can increases the success rate of sciatic nerve block and provide other benefits are not defined. This meta-analysis was aimed to clarify this issue. METHOD: We searched Pubmed, the Cochrane library and Google Scholar. A total of 10 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The patients included underwent ultrasound-guided or nerve stimulation guidance for sciatic nerve block. We compared the success rate, vascular puncture, the time of procedure and Success rate of catheter placement. RESULTS: Ultrasound-guided technology, compared with nerve stimulation for sciatic nerve block, provided higher success rate. [RR = 1.22 95% CI: 1.04-1.42, P = 0.01], Ultrasound guidance also reduce the risk of vascular puncture. [RR = 0.13 95% CI: 0.02-0.97, P = 0.05]. However, the success rate of catheter placement [RR = 1.1095% CI: 0.93-1.29, P = 0.27] and the time of performing sciatica never block [RR = -0.17 95% CI: -1.61-1.27, P = 0.82] did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to traditional nerve stimulation guidance, ultrasound guidance for sciatic nerve may improve the success rate of block and reduce the risk of vascular puncture.
BACKGROUND:Sciatic nerve block is widely used for anesthesia and analgesia in lower limb surgery, traditional method used for sciatic nerve block is nerve stimulation guidance. Whether the use of ultrasound-guided technology can increases the success rate of sciatic nerve block and provide other benefits are not defined. This meta-analysis was aimed to clarify this issue. METHOD: We searched Pubmed, the Cochrane library and Google Scholar. A total of 10 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The patients included underwent ultrasound-guided or nerve stimulation guidance for sciatic nerve block. We compared the success rate, vascular puncture, the time of procedure and Success rate of catheter placement. RESULTS: Ultrasound-guided technology, compared with nerve stimulation for sciatic nerve block, provided higher success rate. [RR = 1.22 95% CI: 1.04-1.42, P = 0.01], Ultrasound guidance also reduce the risk of vascular puncture. [RR = 0.13 95% CI: 0.02-0.97, P = 0.05]. However, the success rate of catheter placement [RR = 1.1095% CI: 0.93-1.29, P = 0.27] and the time of performing sciatica never block [RR = -0.17 95% CI: -1.61-1.27, P = 0.82] did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to traditional nerve stimulation guidance, ultrasound guidance for sciatic nerve may improve the success rate of block and reduce the risk of vascular puncture.
Entities:
Keywords:
Sciatic never block; meta-analysis; ultrasound-guided technology
Authors: Vicente Domingo-Triadó; Salvador Selfa; Francisco Martínez; Dolores Sánchez-Contreras; Montserrat Reche; Jose Tecles; María T Crespo; Jose M Palanca; Blanca Moro Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Xavier Sala-Blanch; Nicolás de Riva; Anna Carrera; Ana M López; Alberto Prats; Admir Hadzic Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Thomas F Bendtsen; Thomas D Nielsen; Claus V Rohde; Kristian Kibak; Frank Linde Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2011 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Eric Dufour; Patrick Quennesson; Anne Laure Van Robais; Françoise Ledon; Pierre-Antoine Laloë; Ngai Liu; Marc Fischler Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: U Oberndorfer; P Marhofer; A Bösenberg; H Willschke; M Felfernig; M Weintraud; S Kapral; S C Kettner Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2007-04-21 Impact factor: 9.166