Literature DB >> 28272290

A Double-Blind Randomized Comparison of Continuous Interscalene, Supraclavicular, and Suprascapular Blocks for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

David B Auyong1, Stanley C Yuan, Daniel S Choi, Joshuel A Pahang, April E Slee, Neil A Hanson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Continuous brachial plexus blocks at the interscalene level are associated with known diaphragm dysfunction from phrenic nerve paresis. More distal blocks along the brachial plexus may provide postsurgical analgesia while potentially having less effect on diaphragm function. Continuous interscalene, continuous supraclavicular, and continuous suprascapular nerve blocks were evaluated for respiratory function and analgesia after total shoulder arthroplasty.
METHODS: After ethics board approval, subjects presenting for total shoulder arthroplasty were planned for randomization in a 1:1:1 ratio of a continuous interscalene, supraclavicular, or suprascapular block. The primary outcome was the assessment of vital capacity after 24 hours of continuous nerve block infusion (6 mL/h; 0.2% ropivacaine), without an initial bolus of local anesthetic during catheter placement. Additional outcomes included diaphragm excursion, pain scores, opioid consumption, and adverse effects.
RESULTS: Seventy-five subjects, 25 per group, completed the study. At 24 hours of continuous infusion only (no initial block bolus), the mean vital capacity reduction in the continuous interscalene control group was 991 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 820-1162). Compared to the interscalene group, the continuous supraclavicular group had a mean vital capacity reduction of 803 mL (95% CI, 616-991; P = 0.322). The continuous suprascapular group had a significantly improved mean vital capacity reduction of 464 mL (95% CI, 289-639; P < 0.001) when similarly compared against the interscalene group. A relative compromise in ultrasound-measured diaphragm excursion was identified in the interscalene group compared to both the supraclavicular group (P = 0.012) and the suprascapular group (P < 0.001). Mean pain scores on an 11-point scale (2.2, 1.6, and 2.6) and 24-hour opioid consumption (13.8 mg, 9.9 mg, and 21.8 mg) for groups interscalene, supraclavicular, and suprascapular, respectively, did not show statistically significant differences. Less adverse effects (Horner syndrome, dyspnea, and hoarseness) were noted in the suprascapular group when compared with the interscalene group (P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: A continuous suprascapular block may be a useful analgesic alternative to the interscalene or supraclavicular approaches when the preservation of lung function is a priority after shoulder replacement surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28272290     DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000578

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


  4 in total

1.  Liposomal bupivacaine nerve block provides better pain control post-total shoulder arthroplasty than continuous indwelling catheter.

Authors:  Ryan Krupp; Austin Smith; John Nyland; Colton Mojesky; Deandrea Perkins; Leah Y Carreon
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided interscalene block vs. supraclavicular block for ambulatory arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A randomised noninferiority study.

Authors:  Julien Cabaton; Laurent Nové-Josserand; Luc Mercadal; Thierry Vaudelin
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Adverse events associated with continuous interscalene block administered using the catheter-over-needle method: a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Meishu Tanijima; Kenichi Takechi; Kazuo Nakanishi; Toshihiro Yorozuya
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 2.217

4.  Continuous suprascapular nerve block compared with single-shot interscalene brachial plexus block for pain control after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Authors:  Hoon Choi; Kyungmoon Roh; Mina Joo; Sang Hyun Hong
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 2.365

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.