{"title":"超声引导下臂丛神经周围阻滞与近端血管周围阻滞的比较","authors":"","doi":"10.22514/sv.2023.082/","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The traditional axillary perineural (PN) approach for brachial plexus block is frequently used, but separate musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) block is required and increases procedure time and patient discomfort. We hypothesized that a block using the proximal perivascular (PPV) method at the MCN branching from the lateral cord would obviate the need for an MCN block while ensuring a quality similar to that of the PN method. For the PN group (n = 25), a needle was placed on each nerve, and 8 mL local anesthetic was infiltrated around the radial, ulnar, and median nerves (total: 24 mL). We then injected 6 mL local anesthetic around the MCN. In the PPV group (n = 25), we moved the probe proximally until the branching junction of the the MCN in the lateral cord. The needle tips were placed in the 12-o’clock and 6-o’clock positions of the axillary artery, and 15 mL local anesthetic was injected (total: 30 mL). The procedure time, number of needle passes, procedure-related complications, sensory/motor block level, and onset time were recorded. The PPV group had a significantly shorter procedure time than the PN group (3.9 ± 1.0 vs. 7.5 ± 3.3 min, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the PPV group required fewer needle passes. The PN group showed a significantly faster onset time than the PPV group (6.4 ± 2.7 vs. 10.4 ± 2.9 min, p < 0.001). The induction time did not show significant intergroup difference. Sensory blockade in the PN group occurred significantly faster than that in the PPV group at 5 and 10 min. There were no significant differences in motor nerve paralysis. PPV axillary block under ultrasound guidance was as effective as the PN axillary block. Therefore, the PPV axillary block is a simple, safe and effective regional technique for upper limb surgery.","PeriodicalId":49522,"journal":{"name":"Signa Vitae","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of perineural brachial plexus block and proximal perivascular block in ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.22514/sv.2023.082/\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The traditional axillary perineural (PN) approach for brachial plexus block is frequently used, but separate musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) block is required and increases procedure time and patient discomfort. We hypothesized that a block using the proximal perivascular (PPV) method at the MCN branching from the lateral cord would obviate the need for an MCN block while ensuring a quality similar to that of the PN method. For the PN group (n = 25), a needle was placed on each nerve, and 8 mL local anesthetic was infiltrated around the radial, ulnar, and median nerves (total: 24 mL). We then injected 6 mL local anesthetic around the MCN. In the PPV group (n = 25), we moved the probe proximally until the branching junction of the the MCN in the lateral cord. The needle tips were placed in the 12-o’clock and 6-o’clock positions of the axillary artery, and 15 mL local anesthetic was injected (total: 30 mL). The procedure time, number of needle passes, procedure-related complications, sensory/motor block level, and onset time were recorded. The PPV group had a significantly shorter procedure time than the PN group (3.9 ± 1.0 vs. 7.5 ± 3.3 min, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the PPV group required fewer needle passes. The PN group showed a significantly faster onset time than the PPV group (6.4 ± 2.7 vs. 10.4 ± 2.9 min, p < 0.001). The induction time did not show significant intergroup difference. Sensory blockade in the PN group occurred significantly faster than that in the PPV group at 5 and 10 min. There were no significant differences in motor nerve paralysis. PPV axillary block under ultrasound guidance was as effective as the PN axillary block. Therefore, the PPV axillary block is a simple, safe and effective regional technique for upper limb surgery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Signa Vitae\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Signa Vitae\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22514/sv.2023.082/\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Signa Vitae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22514/sv.2023.082/","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
臂丛神经阻滞通常采用传统的腋窝周围神经(PN)入路,但需要单独的肌肉皮神经(MCN)阻滞,这增加了手术时间和患者的不适。我们假设使用近端血管周围(PPV)方法在侧索分支的MCN处进行阻滞,可以避免MCN阻滞的需要,同时确保与PN方法相似的质量。PN组(n = 25),每根神经上放置一根针,在桡神经、尺神经和正中神经周围浸润局麻药8 mL(共24 mL)。然后在MCN周围注射6 mL局麻药。在PPV组(n = 25)中,我们将探针近端移动到MCN在外侧脊髓的分支连接处。针尖分别置于腋窝动脉12、6点钟位置,注射局麻15 mL(共30 mL)。记录手术时间、穿刺次数、手术相关并发症、感觉/运动阻滞水平和开始时间。PPV组手术时间明显短于PN组(3.9±1.0 vs. 7.5±3.3 min, p <0.001)。此外,PPV组需要更少的针道。PN组的发病时间明显快于PPV组(6.4±2.7 vs 10.4±2.9 min, p <0.001)。诱导时间组间差异不显著。PN组感觉阻滞发生时间在5和10 min明显快于PPV组,运动神经麻痹无显著性差异。超声引导下PPV腋窝阻滞与PN腋窝阻滞效果相同。因此,PPV腋窝阻滞术是一种简单、安全、有效的局部上肢手术技术。
Comparison of perineural brachial plexus block and proximal perivascular block in ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block
The traditional axillary perineural (PN) approach for brachial plexus block is frequently used, but separate musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) block is required and increases procedure time and patient discomfort. We hypothesized that a block using the proximal perivascular (PPV) method at the MCN branching from the lateral cord would obviate the need for an MCN block while ensuring a quality similar to that of the PN method. For the PN group (n = 25), a needle was placed on each nerve, and 8 mL local anesthetic was infiltrated around the radial, ulnar, and median nerves (total: 24 mL). We then injected 6 mL local anesthetic around the MCN. In the PPV group (n = 25), we moved the probe proximally until the branching junction of the the MCN in the lateral cord. The needle tips were placed in the 12-o’clock and 6-o’clock positions of the axillary artery, and 15 mL local anesthetic was injected (total: 30 mL). The procedure time, number of needle passes, procedure-related complications, sensory/motor block level, and onset time were recorded. The PPV group had a significantly shorter procedure time than the PN group (3.9 ± 1.0 vs. 7.5 ± 3.3 min, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the PPV group required fewer needle passes. The PN group showed a significantly faster onset time than the PPV group (6.4 ± 2.7 vs. 10.4 ± 2.9 min, p < 0.001). The induction time did not show significant intergroup difference. Sensory blockade in the PN group occurred significantly faster than that in the PPV group at 5 and 10 min. There were no significant differences in motor nerve paralysis. PPV axillary block under ultrasound guidance was as effective as the PN axillary block. Therefore, the PPV axillary block is a simple, safe and effective regional technique for upper limb surgery.
期刊介绍:
Signa Vitae is a completely open-access,peer-reviewed journal dedicate to deliver the leading edge research in anaesthesia, intensive care and emergency medicine to publics. The journal’s intention is to be practice-oriented, so we focus on the clinical practice and fundamental understanding of adult, pediatric and neonatal intensive care, as well as anesthesia and emergency medicine.
Although Signa Vitae is primarily a clinical journal, we welcome submissions of basic science papers if the authors can demonstrate their clinical relevance. The Signa Vitae journal encourages scientists and academicians all around the world to share their original writings in the form of original research, review, mini-review, systematic review, short communication, case report, letter to the editor, commentary, rapid report, news and views, as well as meeting report. Full texts of all published articles, can be downloaded for free from our web site.