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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |