Prospective evaluation of the safety of ultrasound-guided cervical medial branch blocks using the in-plane technique

John-Paul B Etheridge, Roderick J Finlayson, Jan Venter, Frederik De Villiers, Jonathan P Etheridge, Reece Wakefield, Arraya Watanitanon
{"title":"Prospective evaluation of the safety of ultrasound-guided cervical medial branch blocks using the in-plane technique","authors":"John-Paul B Etheridge, Roderick J Finlayson, Jan Venter, Frederik De Villiers, Jonathan P Etheridge, Reece Wakefield, Arraya Watanitanon","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background While fluoroscopic guidance is currently the imaging standard for cervical medial branch blocks (CMBBs), ultrasound guidance (USG) offers several potential safety advantages such as real-time needle visualization and the ability to detect and avoid critical soft tissue vascular or neural structures. However, no large-scale trials have examined the safety of USG for CMBB. Methods Five hundred patients undergoing 2308 individual block levels were recruited using a prospective cohort design, and blocks were performed in an outpatient office setting using an in-plane USG technique. Primary outcomes included immediate block-related complication, as well as delayed occurrences, in the following 2 weeks. Vascular structures adjacent to the target area, as well as the occurrence of vascular breach, were recorded. Results Three minor immediate complications were noted (two subcutaneous hematomas, one vasovagal reaction) comprising 0.13% of blocks (0.03% to 0.38%; 95% two-sided CI), and no delayed events were recorded (0% to 0.16%; 97.5% one-sided CI). Blood vessels were detected and avoided in 8.2% of blocks, and vascular breach was noted in 0.52% of blocks (0.27% to 0.91%; 95% two-sided CI). Conclusion When performed using an in-plane technique by experienced operators, USG CMBB was found to be safe, with rare minor immediate complications and no further adverse event reported in the following 2 weeks. Trial registration number [NCT04852393][1]. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT04852393&atom=%2Frapm%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F19%2Frapm-2024-105296.atom","PeriodicalId":21046,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-105296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background While fluoroscopic guidance is currently the imaging standard for cervical medial branch blocks (CMBBs), ultrasound guidance (USG) offers several potential safety advantages such as real-time needle visualization and the ability to detect and avoid critical soft tissue vascular or neural structures. However, no large-scale trials have examined the safety of USG for CMBB. Methods Five hundred patients undergoing 2308 individual block levels were recruited using a prospective cohort design, and blocks were performed in an outpatient office setting using an in-plane USG technique. Primary outcomes included immediate block-related complication, as well as delayed occurrences, in the following 2 weeks. Vascular structures adjacent to the target area, as well as the occurrence of vascular breach, were recorded. Results Three minor immediate complications were noted (two subcutaneous hematomas, one vasovagal reaction) comprising 0.13% of blocks (0.03% to 0.38%; 95% two-sided CI), and no delayed events were recorded (0% to 0.16%; 97.5% one-sided CI). Blood vessels were detected and avoided in 8.2% of blocks, and vascular breach was noted in 0.52% of blocks (0.27% to 0.91%; 95% two-sided CI). Conclusion When performed using an in-plane technique by experienced operators, USG CMBB was found to be safe, with rare minor immediate complications and no further adverse event reported in the following 2 weeks. Trial registration number [NCT04852393][1]. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT04852393&atom=%2Frapm%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F19%2Frapm-2024-105296.atom
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用平面内技术对超声引导下颈椎内侧支阻滞安全性的前瞻性评估
背景 虽然透视引导是目前颈内侧支阻滞(CMBB)的成像标准,但超声引导(USG)具有一些潜在的安全优势,如针的实时可视性以及检测和避开关键软组织血管或神经结构的能力。然而,目前还没有大规模试验对 USG 用于 CMBB 的安全性进行研究。方法 采用前瞻性队列设计,招募了 500 名接受 2308 次单独阻滞的患者,在门诊诊室环境中使用平面 USG 技术进行阻滞。主要结果包括即刻发生的阻滞相关并发症以及随后两周内延迟发生的并发症。目标区域附近的血管结构以及血管破损的发生情况均被记录在案。结果 发现了 3 起轻微的即刻并发症(2 起皮下血肿,1 起血管迷走反应),占阻滞治疗的 0.13%(0.03% 至 0.38%;95% 双侧 CI),没有延迟事件记录(0% 至 0.16%;97.5% 单侧 CI)。在 8.2% 的阻滞中发现并避开了血管,在 0.52% 的阻滞中发现了血管破损(0.27% 至 0.91%;95% 单侧 CI)。结论 由经验丰富的操作者使用平面内技术进行 USG CMBB 是安全的,仅有极少数轻微的即刻并发症,且在随后的两周内没有进一步的不良事件报告。试验注册号[NCT04852393][1]。与该研究相关的所有数据均包含在文章中或作为补充信息上传。[1]:/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT04852393&atom=%2Frapm%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F19%2Frapm-2024-105296.atom
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Optimal techniques of ultrasound-guided superficial and deep parasternal intercostal plane blocks—a cadaveric study Multimodal analgesia and the erector spinae plane block in a rapid recovery pathway after posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized controlled study of practicality In reply: evaluating the efficacy of PENG and SIFICB in hip fracture analgesia – a critical analysis Invited reply letter: optimal techniques of ultrasound-guided superficial and deep parasternal intercostal plane blocks – a cadaveric study Postoperative epidural analgesia and outcomes following pediatric bilateral lung and heart-lung transplantation: a retrospective observational study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1