Medial versus lateral approach in ultrasound-guided costoclavicular brachial plexus block for upper limb surgery: a randomized control trial.

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesiology intensive therapy Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5114/ait.2024.142761
Saranlal Am, Nishant Patel, Rakesh Kumar, Kanil R Ranjith, Thilaka Muthiah, Arshad Ayub, Akhil Kant Singh, Puneet Khanna, Bikash Ranjan Ray
{"title":"Medial versus lateral approach in ultrasound-guided costoclavicular brachial plexus block for upper limb surgery: a randomized control trial.","authors":"Saranlal Am, Nishant Patel, Rakesh Kumar, Kanil R Ranjith, Thilaka Muthiah, Arshad Ayub, Akhil Kant Singh, Puneet Khanna, Bikash Ranjan Ray","doi":"10.5114/ait.2024.142761","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Costoclavicular brachial plexus block has become a procedure of choice for surgical anaesthesia or analgesia in upper limb surgery. The technique is not standardised yet, and two approaches are currently employed: the medial and lateral approach. Our study aims to compare the two approaches in terms of performance time and patient-specific clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The primary outcome assessed was performance time. The secondary outcomes were imaging time, needling time, block onset time, total anaesthesia time, anaesthesia success, and performer difficulty score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 59 patients, 30 patients were randomized to Group M and 29 patients were randomized to Group L. We conducted statistical analysis using a modified intention-to-treat approach. The mean ± SD for performance time (in minutes) was 11.9 ± 3.8 in Group M and 9.4 ± 4.1 in Group L with a difference between means (95% CI) of 2.4 (0.3 to 4.5) ( P < 0.05). The median (interquartile range) needling time of Group M was 9.5 minutes (5-16) vs. 7 (4-19) in Group L ( P = 0.035). Among patients, 40%, 26.67%, 33.3% in Group M had grade 3, 2, 1 performer difficulty whereas 10.3%, 37.9%, 51.7% in Group L had grade 3, 2, 1 performer difficulty, respectively ( P = 0.032). The mean performance time was 9.95 minutes in patients with body mass index (BMI) 25 ( P = 0.0243).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study revealed that the medial approach has no significant advantage over the lateral approach with regards to performance time, imaging time, needling time, and performer difficulty. Both performance time and performer difficulty increase with BMI and depth of the cords, with a larger difference in the medial approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":"56 3","pages":"199-205"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11484484/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2024.142761","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Costoclavicular brachial plexus block has become a procedure of choice for surgical anaesthesia or analgesia in upper limb surgery. The technique is not standardised yet, and two approaches are currently employed: the medial and lateral approach. Our study aims to compare the two approaches in terms of performance time and patient-specific clinical outcomes.

Material and methods: The primary outcome assessed was performance time. The secondary outcomes were imaging time, needling time, block onset time, total anaesthesia time, anaesthesia success, and performer difficulty score.

Results: Of 59 patients, 30 patients were randomized to Group M and 29 patients were randomized to Group L. We conducted statistical analysis using a modified intention-to-treat approach. The mean ± SD for performance time (in minutes) was 11.9 ± 3.8 in Group M and 9.4 ± 4.1 in Group L with a difference between means (95% CI) of 2.4 (0.3 to 4.5) ( P < 0.05). The median (interquartile range) needling time of Group M was 9.5 minutes (5-16) vs. 7 (4-19) in Group L ( P = 0.035). Among patients, 40%, 26.67%, 33.3% in Group M had grade 3, 2, 1 performer difficulty whereas 10.3%, 37.9%, 51.7% in Group L had grade 3, 2, 1 performer difficulty, respectively ( P = 0.032). The mean performance time was 9.95 minutes in patients with body mass index (BMI) 25 ( P = 0.0243).

Conclusions: Our study revealed that the medial approach has no significant advantage over the lateral approach with regards to performance time, imaging time, needling time, and performer difficulty. Both performance time and performer difficulty increase with BMI and depth of the cords, with a larger difference in the medial approach.

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
上肢手术中超声引导肋锁臂丛阻滞的内侧与外侧入路:随机对照试验。
导言肋锁臂丛神经阻滞已成为上肢手术麻醉或镇痛的首选方法。该技术尚未标准化,目前采用两种方法:内侧和外侧方法。我们的研究旨在比较这两种方法的操作时间和患者的具体临床效果:材料和方法:评估的主要结果是手术时间。次要结果为成像时间、针刺时间、阻滞开始时间、总麻醉时间、麻醉成功率和执行者难度评分:在 59 名患者中,30 名患者被随机分配到 M 组,29 名患者被随机分配到 L 组。M 组的表演时间(以分钟为单位)平均值(± SD)为 11.9 ± 3.8,L 组为 9.4 ± 4.1,平均值之间的差异(95% CI)为 2.4(0.3 至 4.5)(P < 0.05)。M 组的针刺时间中位数(四分位数间距)为 9.5 分钟(5-16),L 组为 7 分钟(4-19)(P = 0.035)。在患者中,M 组分别有 40%、26.67% 和 33.3% 的患者有 3、2 和 1 级施术困难,而 L 组分别有 10.3%、37.9% 和 51.7% 的患者有 3、2 和 1 级施术困难 ( P = 0.032)。体重指数(BMI)为 25 的患者的平均手术时间为 9.95 分钟(P = 0.0243):我们的研究表明,在操作时间、成像时间、针刺时间和操作难度方面,内侧入路与外侧入路相比没有明显优势。表演时间和表演者难度都会随着体重指数(BMI)和绳索深度的增加而增加,内侧入路的差异更大。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
A randomised controlled trial to compare blind intubation success through LMA Blockbuster® and I-Gel® LMA. Can't intubate, can't oxygenate? What is the preferred surgical strategy? A retrospective analysis. Measures of preoperative anxiety: Part two. Navigating through the paradox of choice: prediction of outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Nutritional management in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective multicentre 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