The Use of a New Device-Assisted Needle Guidance versus Conventional Approach to Perform Ultrasound Guided Brachial Plexus Blockade: A Randomized Controlled Study.

IF 1.5 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Local and Regional Anesthesia Pub Date : 2022-07-25 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.2147/LRA.S363563
Amaresh Vydyanathan, Priya Agrawal, Naveen Shetty, Singh Nair, Nancy Shilian, Naum Shaparin
{"title":"The Use of a New Device-Assisted Needle Guidance versus Conventional Approach to Perform Ultrasound Guided Brachial Plexus Blockade: A Randomized Controlled Study.","authors":"Amaresh Vydyanathan,&nbsp;Priya Agrawal,&nbsp;Naveen Shetty,&nbsp;Singh Nair,&nbsp;Nancy Shilian,&nbsp;Naum Shaparin","doi":"10.2147/LRA.S363563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Ultrasound guidance during nerve blockade poses the challenge of maintaining in-plane alignment of the needle tip. The needle guidance device maintains needle alignment and assists with in-plane needle visualization. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of this device by comparing procedure performance during brachial plexus blockade with the conventional approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After the Institutional Review Board approval and obtaining informed consent, 70 patients receiving either interscalene or supraclavicular nerve blocks were randomly assigned into 2 groups, a conventional approach versus utilizing the needle guidance device. An independent observer recorded: total procedure time; needle insertion time; number of unplanned redirections; and number of reinsertions. Additionally, physician satisfaction and ease of needle visualization were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from seventy patients were analyzed. The median [25th percentile-75th percentile] time to complete the block by the device assisted needle guidance group was 3 (2-3.75) minutes and 4 (3-6) minutes in the conventional approach group (p < 0.001). Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed in the supraclavicular block and interscalene block. Supraclavicular blockade, needle insertion time (median [25th percentile-75th percentile] in seconds) (106 [92-162] vs 197 [140-278]), total procedure time (3 [2-3] vs 4.5 [4-6] in minutes) and unplanned needle redirections (2 [1-5] vs 5.5 [3-9]) were significantly lower in needle guidance group (p < 0.001). With interscalene blockade, needle insertion time (86 [76-146] vs 126 [94-295]) and unplanned needle redirections (2 [1-3] vs 4 [2-8.5]) were significantly lower with needle guidance (p < 0.001), but total procedure time was similar. All the physicians reported that they would use the needle guidance again, and 90% would prefer it for in-plane blocks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Performing regional blocks using the needle guidance device reduces needle insertion time and unplanned needle redirections in brachial plexus blockade. Moreover, physician satisfaction also improved compared to the use of the conventional technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":18203,"journal":{"name":"Local and Regional Anesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ae/27/lra-15-61.PMC9338390.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Local and Regional Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S363563","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Ultrasound guidance during nerve blockade poses the challenge of maintaining in-plane alignment of the needle tip. The needle guidance device maintains needle alignment and assists with in-plane needle visualization. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of this device by comparing procedure performance during brachial plexus blockade with the conventional approach.

Methods: After the Institutional Review Board approval and obtaining informed consent, 70 patients receiving either interscalene or supraclavicular nerve blocks were randomly assigned into 2 groups, a conventional approach versus utilizing the needle guidance device. An independent observer recorded: total procedure time; needle insertion time; number of unplanned redirections; and number of reinsertions. Additionally, physician satisfaction and ease of needle visualization were assessed.

Results: Data from seventy patients were analyzed. The median [25th percentile-75th percentile] time to complete the block by the device assisted needle guidance group was 3 (2-3.75) minutes and 4 (3-6) minutes in the conventional approach group (p < 0.001). Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed in the supraclavicular block and interscalene block. Supraclavicular blockade, needle insertion time (median [25th percentile-75th percentile] in seconds) (106 [92-162] vs 197 [140-278]), total procedure time (3 [2-3] vs 4.5 [4-6] in minutes) and unplanned needle redirections (2 [1-5] vs 5.5 [3-9]) were significantly lower in needle guidance group (p < 0.001). With interscalene blockade, needle insertion time (86 [76-146] vs 126 [94-295]) and unplanned needle redirections (2 [1-3] vs 4 [2-8.5]) were significantly lower with needle guidance (p < 0.001), but total procedure time was similar. All the physicians reported that they would use the needle guidance again, and 90% would prefer it for in-plane blocks.

Conclusion: Performing regional blocks using the needle guidance device reduces needle insertion time and unplanned needle redirections in brachial plexus blockade. Moreover, physician satisfaction also improved compared to the use of the conventional technique.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
一项随机对照研究:使用一种新的装置辅助针引导与传统方法进行超声引导臂丛阻断。
目的:神经阻断术中超声引导对维持针尖平面内对齐提出了挑战。针导向装置保持针对准,并协助在平面内针的可视化。本研究的目的是通过比较臂丛阻滞与常规入路的手术表现来评估该装置的实用性。方法:经机构审查委员会批准并获得知情同意后,将70例接受斜胛间神经阻滞或锁骨上神经阻滞的患者随机分为两组,分别采用常规入路和针导装置。独立观察员记录:总程序时间;针入时间;计划外改道次数;再插入的次数。此外,还评估了医生的满意度和针的可视性。结果:分析了70例患者的资料。器械辅助导针组完成阻滞的中位时间[25 -75百分位数]为3(2-3.75)分钟,常规入路组为4(3-6)分钟(p < 0.001)。此外,对锁骨上阻滞和斜角肌间阻滞进行亚组分析。锁骨上阻断、针插入时间(中位数[25百分位数-75百分位数]秒)(106 [92-162]vs 197[140-278])、总手术时间(3 [2-3]vs 4.5[4-6]分钟)和计划外针重定向(2 [1-5]vs 5.5[3-9])均显著低于针引导组(p < 0.001)。在斜角肌间阻滞下,针插入时间(86 [76-146]vs 126[94-295])和计划外的针重定向(2 [1-3]vs 4[2-8.5])在针引导下显著降低(p < 0.001),但总手术时间相似。所有的医生报告说,他们会再次使用针头引导,90%的人更喜欢平面内阻滞。结论:在臂丛神经阻滞中使用导针装置进行局部阻滞可减少针的插入时间和针的非计划重定向。此外,与使用传统技术相比,医生满意度也有所提高。
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
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Foot Drop Following a Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Block with Ropivacaine, A Case Report and Literature Review. Comparison of Spinal Morphine and Transversus Abdominis Plane Block on Opioid Requirements After Caesarean Section: An Observational Study. Current Status and Global Trend of Rebound Pain After Regional Anesthesia: A Bibliometric Analysis. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Regarding Use of Local Anaesthetics Among Non-Anaesthesia Healthcare Professionals at Mulago National Referral Hospital. Combined Supra-Inguinal Fascia Iliaca, Sciatic Nerve, and Posterior Femoral Cutaneous Nerve Blocks in Austere Settings for Hemodynamically Unstable Patients with Vascular Injuries from Weapon Wounds: A Case Series.
×
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