Cargando…

Axillary approach versus the infraclavicular approach in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: comparison of anesthetic time

BACKGROUND: With ultrasound guidance, the success rate of brachial plexus block (BPB) is 95-100% and the anesthetic time has become a more important factor than before. Many investigators have compared ultrasound guidance with the nerve stimulation technique, but there are few studies comparing diff...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Song, In Ae, Gil, Nam-Su, Choi, Eun-young, Sim, Sung-Eun, Min, Seong-Won, Ro, Young-Jin, Kim, Chong Soo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155130/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21860745
http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2011.61.1.12
_version_ 1782210083420110848
author Song, In Ae
Gil, Nam-Su
Choi, Eun-young
Sim, Sung-Eun
Min, Seong-Won
Ro, Young-Jin
Kim, Chong Soo
author_facet Song, In Ae
Gil, Nam-Su
Choi, Eun-young
Sim, Sung-Eun
Min, Seong-Won
Ro, Young-Jin
Kim, Chong Soo
author_sort Song, In Ae
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: With ultrasound guidance, the success rate of brachial plexus block (BPB) is 95-100% and the anesthetic time has become a more important factor than before. Many investigators have compared ultrasound guidance with the nerve stimulation technique, but there are few studies comparing different approaches via the same ultrasound guidance. We compared the axillary BPB with the infraclavicular BPB under ultrasound guidance. METHODS: Twenty-two ASA physical status I-II patients presenting with elective forearm surgery were prospectively randomized to receive an axillary BPB (group AX) or an infraclavicular BPB (group IC) with ultrasound guidance. Both groups received a total of 20 ml of 1.5% lidocaine with 5 µg/ml epinephrine and 0.1 mEq/ml sodium bicarbonate. Patients were then evaluated for block onset and block performance time was also recorded. RESULTS: Group IC demonstrated a reduction in performance time vs. group AX (622 ± 139 sec vs. 789 ± 131 sec, P < 0.05). But, the onset time was longer in group IC than in group AX (7.7 ± 8.8 min vs. 1.4 ± 2.3 min, P < 0.05). All blocks were successful in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Under ultrasound guidance, infraclavicular BPB was faster to perform than the axillary approach. But the block onset was slower with the infraclavicular approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3155130
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31551302011-08-22 Axillary approach versus the infraclavicular approach in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: comparison of anesthetic time Song, In Ae Gil, Nam-Su Choi, Eun-young Sim, Sung-Eun Min, Seong-Won Ro, Young-Jin Kim, Chong Soo Korean J Anesthesiol Clinical Research Article BACKGROUND: With ultrasound guidance, the success rate of brachial plexus block (BPB) is 95-100% and the anesthetic time has become a more important factor than before. Many investigators have compared ultrasound guidance with the nerve stimulation technique, but there are few studies comparing different approaches via the same ultrasound guidance. We compared the axillary BPB with the infraclavicular BPB under ultrasound guidance. METHODS: Twenty-two ASA physical status I-II patients presenting with elective forearm surgery were prospectively randomized to receive an axillary BPB (group AX) or an infraclavicular BPB (group IC) with ultrasound guidance. Both groups received a total of 20 ml of 1.5% lidocaine with 5 µg/ml epinephrine and 0.1 mEq/ml sodium bicarbonate. Patients were then evaluated for block onset and block performance time was also recorded. RESULTS: Group IC demonstrated a reduction in performance time vs. group AX (622 ± 139 sec vs. 789 ± 131 sec, P < 0.05). But, the onset time was longer in group IC than in group AX (7.7 ± 8.8 min vs. 1.4 ± 2.3 min, P < 0.05). All blocks were successful in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Under ultrasound guidance, infraclavicular BPB was faster to perform than the axillary approach. But the block onset was slower with the infraclavicular approach. The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2011-07 2011-07-21 /pmc/articles/PMC3155130/ /pubmed/21860745 http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2011.61.1.12 Text en Copyright © the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2011 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Research Article
Song, In Ae
Gil, Nam-Su
Choi, Eun-young
Sim, Sung-Eun
Min, Seong-Won
Ro, Young-Jin
Kim, Chong Soo
Axillary approach versus the infraclavicular approach in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: comparison of anesthetic time
title Axillary approach versus the infraclavicular approach in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: comparison of anesthetic time
title_full Axillary approach versus the infraclavicular approach in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: comparison of anesthetic time
title_fullStr Axillary approach versus the infraclavicular approach in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: comparison of anesthetic time
title_full_unstemmed Axillary approach versus the infraclavicular approach in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: comparison of anesthetic time
title_short Axillary approach versus the infraclavicular approach in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: comparison of anesthetic time
title_sort axillary approach versus the infraclavicular approach in ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: comparison of anesthetic time
topic Clinical Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155130/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21860745
http://dx.doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2011.61.1.12
work_keys_str_mv AT songinae axillaryapproachversustheinfraclavicularapproachinultrasoundguidedbrachialplexusblockcomparisonofanesthetictime
AT gilnamsu axillaryapproachversustheinfraclavicularapproachinultrasoundguidedbrachialplexusblockcomparisonofanesthetictime
AT choieunyoung axillaryapproachversustheinfraclavicularapproachinultrasoundguidedbrachialplexusblockcomparisonofanesthetictime
AT simsungeun axillaryapproachversustheinfraclavicularapproachinultrasoundguidedbrachialplexusblockcomparisonofanesthetictime
AT minseongwon axillaryapproachversustheinfraclavicularapproachinultrasoundguidedbrachialplexusblockcomparisonofanesthetictime
AT royoungjin axillaryapproachversustheinfraclavicularapproachinultrasoundguidedbrachialplexusblockcomparisonofanesthetictime
AT kimchongsoo axillaryapproachversustheinfraclavicularapproachinultrasoundguidedbrachialplexusblockcomparisonofanesthetictime