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