Randomized comparison between ultrasound-guided proximal and distal approaches of intercostobrachial nerve block as an adjunct to supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper arm arteriovenous access procedures.

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Artid Samerchua, Kittitorn Supphapipat, Prangmalee Leurcharusmee, Panuwat Lapisatepun, Pornpailin Thammasupapong, Sratwadee Lorsomradee
{"title":"Randomized comparison between ultrasound-guided proximal and distal approaches of intercostobrachial nerve block as an adjunct to supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper arm arteriovenous access procedures.","authors":"Artid Samerchua, Kittitorn Supphapipat, Prangmalee Leurcharusmee, Panuwat Lapisatepun, Pornpailin Thammasupapong, Sratwadee Lorsomradee","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Backgrounds: </strong>Ultrasound-guided proximal and distal approaches of the intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN) blocks facilitate analgesia for upper arm and axillary surgery, though success rates vary and lack clinical comparison. This study compared their anesthetic and analgesic efficacy as an adjunct to the supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper arm arteriovenous access surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>60 end-stage renal disease patients undergoing upper arm arteriovenous access were randomly assigned to receive either proximal or distal ICBN block using 10 mL of a mixture of levobupivacaine and lidocaine with epinephrine. The primary outcome was a successful ICBN block, defined as a cutaneous sensory blockade at both the medial upper arm and axilla 30 min after the block. Secondary outcomes included block performance, block-related complications, rate of surgical anesthesia, and postoperative analgesia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The proximal approach had a higher percentage of sensory blockade at the axilla (96.7% vs 73.3%, p=0.03), but comparable rates at the medial upper arm (96.7% vs 96.7%, p=1.00). Consequently, the proximal approach had a higher overall success rate (96.7% vs 73.3%, difference: 23.3%; 95% CI: 6.3%, 40.4%; p=0.03). Both groups had similar surgical anesthesia rates of 93.3%. No significant differences were found in performance time, procedural pain, or postoperative pain intensity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Proximal ICBN block consistently reduced sensation in the medial upper arm and axilla, while one-quarter of distal blocks spared the axilla. Both approaches, in combination with a supraclavicular brachial plexus block, were effective for upper arm arteriovenous access procedures. However, the proximal approach may be preferable for axillary surgery.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>TCTR20200730006.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-105973","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Backgrounds: Ultrasound-guided proximal and distal approaches of the intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN) blocks facilitate analgesia for upper arm and axillary surgery, though success rates vary and lack clinical comparison. This study compared their anesthetic and analgesic efficacy as an adjunct to the supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper arm arteriovenous access surgery.

Methods: 60 end-stage renal disease patients undergoing upper arm arteriovenous access were randomly assigned to receive either proximal or distal ICBN block using 10 mL of a mixture of levobupivacaine and lidocaine with epinephrine. The primary outcome was a successful ICBN block, defined as a cutaneous sensory blockade at both the medial upper arm and axilla 30 min after the block. Secondary outcomes included block performance, block-related complications, rate of surgical anesthesia, and postoperative analgesia.

Results: The proximal approach had a higher percentage of sensory blockade at the axilla (96.7% vs 73.3%, p=0.03), but comparable rates at the medial upper arm (96.7% vs 96.7%, p=1.00). Consequently, the proximal approach had a higher overall success rate (96.7% vs 73.3%, difference: 23.3%; 95% CI: 6.3%, 40.4%; p=0.03). Both groups had similar surgical anesthesia rates of 93.3%. No significant differences were found in performance time, procedural pain, or postoperative pain intensity.

Conclusions: Proximal ICBN block consistently reduced sensation in the medial upper arm and axilla, while one-quarter of distal blocks spared the axilla. Both approaches, in combination with a supraclavicular brachial plexus block, were effective for upper arm arteriovenous access procedures. However, the proximal approach may be preferable for axillary surgery.

Trial registration number: TCTR20200730006.

上臂动静脉通路手术中,超声引导的肋间神经阻滞近端和远端方法作为锁骨上臂丛阻滞的辅助方法的随机比较。
背景:超声引导下的肋间神经(ICBN)近端和远端阻滞有助于上臂和腋窝手术的镇痛,但成功率各不相同,缺乏临床比较。方法:60 名接受上臂动静脉入路手术的终末期肾病患者被随机分配接受近端或远端 ICBN 阻滞,使用 10 mL 左布比卡因和利多卡因与肾上腺素的混合物。主要结果是 ICBN 阻滞成功,即阻滞 30 分钟后上臂内侧和腋窝的皮肤感觉阻滞。次要结果包括阻滞效果、阻滞相关并发症、手术麻醉率和术后镇痛:结果:近端方法在腋窝的感觉阻滞率更高(96.7% vs 73.3%,P=0.03),但在上臂内侧的感觉阻滞率相当(96.7% vs 96.7%,P=1.00)。因此,近端方法的总体成功率更高(96.7% vs 73.3%,差异:23.3%;95% CI:6.3%, 40.4%;P=0.03)。两组的手术麻醉率相似,均为 93.3%。在手术时间、手术疼痛或术后疼痛强度方面没有发现明显差异:结论:近端 ICBN 阻滞会持续降低上臂内侧和腋窝的感觉,而四分之一的远端阻滞不会影响腋窝。这两种方法结合锁骨上臂丛阻滞对上臂动静脉入路手术都很有效。不过,近端方法可能更适合腋窝手术:试验注册号:TTR20200730006。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信