Cargando…

Retroclavicular approach vs infraclavicular approach for plexic bloc anesthesia of the upper limb: study protocol randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The coracoid approach is recognized as the simplest approach to perform brachial plexus anaesthesia, but needle visualization needs to be improved. With a different needle entry point, the retroclavicular approach confers a perpendicular angle between the ultrasound and the needle, which...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Langlois, PL, Gil-Blanco, AF, Jessop, D, Sansoucy, Y, D’Aragon, F, Albert, N, Echave, P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5521069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28732521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2086-1
_version_ 1783251910987350016
author Langlois, PL
Gil-Blanco, AF
Jessop, D
Sansoucy, Y
D’Aragon, F
Albert, N
Echave, P
author_facet Langlois, PL
Gil-Blanco, AF
Jessop, D
Sansoucy, Y
D’Aragon, F
Albert, N
Echave, P
author_sort Langlois, PL
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The coracoid approach is recognized as the simplest approach to perform brachial plexus anaesthesia, but needle visualization needs to be improved. With a different needle entry point, the retroclavicular approach confers a perpendicular angle between the ultrasound and the needle, which theoretically enhances needle visualization. This trial compares these two techniques. The leading hypothesis is that the retroclavicular approach is comparable to the infraclavicular coracoid approach in general aspects, but needle visualization is better with this novel approach. METHODS: We designed a multicentre, randomized, non-inferiority trial. Patients eligible for the study are older than 18 years, able to consent, will undergo urgent or elective upper limb surgery distal to the elbow and are classified with American Society of Anaesthesiologists risk score (ASA) I-III. They will be excluded if they meet contraindicated criteria to regional anaesthesia, have affected anatomy of the clavicle or are pregnant. Randomization will be done by a computer-generated randomization schedule stratified for each site and in 1:1 ratio, and concealment will be maintained with opaque, sealed envelopes in a locked office. The primary outcome, the performance time, will be analyzed using non-inferiority analysis while secondary outcomes will be analyzed with superiority analysis. Needle visualization will be ranked on a Likert scale of 1–5 that is subjective and represents a pitfall. Two separate persons will rank needle visualization to compensate this pitfall. According to previous studies, 49 patients per group are required for statistical power of 0.90 and one-sided type I error of 0.05. DISCUSSION: The conduct of this study will bring clear answers to our questions and, if our hypothesis is confirmed, will confer an anatomic alternative to difficult coracoid infraclavicular brachial blocks or could even become a standard for brachial plexus anaesthesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02913625. Registered on 12 September 2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2086-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5521069
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55210692017-07-21 Retroclavicular approach vs infraclavicular approach for plexic bloc anesthesia of the upper limb: study protocol randomized controlled trial Langlois, PL Gil-Blanco, AF Jessop, D Sansoucy, Y D’Aragon, F Albert, N Echave, P Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: The coracoid approach is recognized as the simplest approach to perform brachial plexus anaesthesia, but needle visualization needs to be improved. With a different needle entry point, the retroclavicular approach confers a perpendicular angle between the ultrasound and the needle, which theoretically enhances needle visualization. This trial compares these two techniques. The leading hypothesis is that the retroclavicular approach is comparable to the infraclavicular coracoid approach in general aspects, but needle visualization is better with this novel approach. METHODS: We designed a multicentre, randomized, non-inferiority trial. Patients eligible for the study are older than 18 years, able to consent, will undergo urgent or elective upper limb surgery distal to the elbow and are classified with American Society of Anaesthesiologists risk score (ASA) I-III. They will be excluded if they meet contraindicated criteria to regional anaesthesia, have affected anatomy of the clavicle or are pregnant. Randomization will be done by a computer-generated randomization schedule stratified for each site and in 1:1 ratio, and concealment will be maintained with opaque, sealed envelopes in a locked office. The primary outcome, the performance time, will be analyzed using non-inferiority analysis while secondary outcomes will be analyzed with superiority analysis. Needle visualization will be ranked on a Likert scale of 1–5 that is subjective and represents a pitfall. Two separate persons will rank needle visualization to compensate this pitfall. According to previous studies, 49 patients per group are required for statistical power of 0.90 and one-sided type I error of 0.05. DISCUSSION: The conduct of this study will bring clear answers to our questions and, if our hypothesis is confirmed, will confer an anatomic alternative to difficult coracoid infraclavicular brachial blocks or could even become a standard for brachial plexus anaesthesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02913625. Registered on 12 September 2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2086-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-07-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5521069/ /pubmed/28732521 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2086-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Langlois, PL
Gil-Blanco, AF
Jessop, D
Sansoucy, Y
D’Aragon, F
Albert, N
Echave, P
Retroclavicular approach vs infraclavicular approach for plexic bloc anesthesia of the upper limb: study protocol randomized controlled trial
title Retroclavicular approach vs infraclavicular approach for plexic bloc anesthesia of the upper limb: study protocol randomized controlled trial
title_full Retroclavicular approach vs infraclavicular approach for plexic bloc anesthesia of the upper limb: study protocol randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Retroclavicular approach vs infraclavicular approach for plexic bloc anesthesia of the upper limb: study protocol randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Retroclavicular approach vs infraclavicular approach for plexic bloc anesthesia of the upper limb: study protocol randomized controlled trial
title_short Retroclavicular approach vs infraclavicular approach for plexic bloc anesthesia of the upper limb: study protocol randomized controlled trial
title_sort retroclavicular approach vs infraclavicular approach for plexic bloc anesthesia of the upper limb: study protocol randomized controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5521069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28732521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2086-1
work_keys_str_mv AT langloispl retroclavicularapproachvsinfraclavicularapproachforplexicblocanesthesiaoftheupperlimbstudyprotocolrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT gilblancoaf retroclavicularapproachvsinfraclavicularapproachforplexicblocanesthesiaoftheupperlimbstudyprotocolrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT jessopd retroclavicularapproachvsinfraclavicularapproachforplexicblocanesthesiaoftheupperlimbstudyprotocolrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT sansoucyy retroclavicularapproachvsinfraclavicularapproachforplexicblocanesthesiaoftheupperlimbstudyprotocolrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT daragonf retroclavicularapproachvsinfraclavicularapproachforplexicblocanesthesiaoftheupperlimbstudyprotocolrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT albertn retroclavicularapproachvsinfraclavicularapproachforplexicblocanesthesiaoftheupperlimbstudyprotocolrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT echavep retroclavicularapproachvsinfraclavicularapproachforplexicblocanesthesiaoftheupperlimbstudyprotocolrandomizedcontrolledtrial