Comparison of ultrasound-guided superior trunk block versus clavipectoral fascial plane block for clavicular surgery: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Korean Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-20 DOI:10.3344/kjp.24343
Mohamed Gaber Mohamed, Ahmed Mohammad Fahmy, Marwa Mohamed Medhat
{"title":"Comparison of ultrasound-guided superior trunk block <i>versus</i> clavipectoral fascial plane block for clavicular surgery: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Mohamed Gaber Mohamed, Ahmed Mohammad Fahmy, Marwa Mohamed Medhat","doi":"10.3344/kjp.24343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compared the quality and duration of analgesia between the superior trunk (ST) and the clavipectoral fascial plane (CFP) blocks in conjunction with a selective supraclavicular nerve (SCN) block for clavicular surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty patients undergoing mid-third clavicular procedures were randomly assigned to the ST group (received an SCN block followed by blockage of the ST of the brachial plexus) and the CFP group (received an SCN block followed by the CFP block). The primary outcome was the time until the first rescue analgesia. Secondary outcomes included total nalbuphine dosage and numerical rating scale (NRS) scores within the first 24 hours, the onset of sensory block, as well as deltoid and biceps muscle function using the modified Bromage score (MBS), diaphragmatic excursion, along with satisfaction levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ST group exhibited a more prolonged duration until the first request for rescue analgesia compared to the CFP group (18.76 ± 0.89 hours vs. 15.34 ± 1.38 hours), with a mean difference of 3.42 hours (95% confidence interval: 2.76 to 4.08, <i>P</i> < 0.001). The ST group consumed less nalbuphine and reported lower NRS scores at 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 hours than the CFP group. Additionally, the ST group exhibited a lower MBS and diaphragmatic excursion than the CFP group. However, the differences in the onset of sensory block and satisfaction levels were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ST group demonstrated superior outcomes in pain control with less favorable outcomes concerning diaphragmatic excursion and upper limb motor function.</p>","PeriodicalId":56252,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"198-206"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11965990/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.24343","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study compared the quality and duration of analgesia between the superior trunk (ST) and the clavipectoral fascial plane (CFP) blocks in conjunction with a selective supraclavicular nerve (SCN) block for clavicular surgeries.

Methods: Fifty patients undergoing mid-third clavicular procedures were randomly assigned to the ST group (received an SCN block followed by blockage of the ST of the brachial plexus) and the CFP group (received an SCN block followed by the CFP block). The primary outcome was the time until the first rescue analgesia. Secondary outcomes included total nalbuphine dosage and numerical rating scale (NRS) scores within the first 24 hours, the onset of sensory block, as well as deltoid and biceps muscle function using the modified Bromage score (MBS), diaphragmatic excursion, along with satisfaction levels.

Results: The ST group exhibited a more prolonged duration until the first request for rescue analgesia compared to the CFP group (18.76 ± 0.89 hours vs. 15.34 ± 1.38 hours), with a mean difference of 3.42 hours (95% confidence interval: 2.76 to 4.08, P < 0.001). The ST group consumed less nalbuphine and reported lower NRS scores at 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 hours than the CFP group. Additionally, the ST group exhibited a lower MBS and diaphragmatic excursion than the CFP group. However, the differences in the onset of sensory block and satisfaction levels were not statistically significant.

Conclusions: The ST group demonstrated superior outcomes in pain control with less favorable outcomes concerning diaphragmatic excursion and upper limb motor function.

超声引导下上干阻滞与锁骨筋膜平面阻滞在锁骨手术中的比较:一项双盲、随机对照试验。
背景:本研究比较了锁骨手术中锁骨上干(ST)和锁骨筋膜平面(CFP)阻滞联合选择性锁骨上神经(SCN)阻滞的镇痛质量和持续时间。方法:50例接受锁骨中段手术的患者随机分为ST组(先行SCN阻滞,再行臂丛ST阻滞)和CFP组(先行SCN阻滞,再行CFP阻滞)。主要观察指标为第一次抢救镇痛前的时间。次要结果包括前24小时内的总纳布啡剂量和数值评定量表(NRS)评分、感觉阻滞的发生、三角肌和二头肌功能(使用改良Bromage评分(MBS))、膈肌偏移以及满意度。结果:ST组比CFP组(18.76±0.89小时比15.34±1.38小时)在第一次请求急救镇痛前的持续时间更长,平均差异为3.42小时(95%可信区间:2.76 ~ 4.08,P < 0.001)。与CFP组相比,ST组服用的纳布啡更少,在6、8、12、16和24小时的NRS评分也更低。此外,ST组表现出较低的MBS和膈移位比CFP组。然而,在感觉阻滞和满意度水平上的差异无统计学意义。结论:ST组在疼痛控制方面表现出较好的结果,而在膈肌偏移和上肢运动功能方面表现出较差的结果。
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
Korean Journal of Pain
Korean Journal of Pain Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Korean Journal of Pain (Korean J Pain, KJP) is the official journal of the Korean Pain Society, founded in 1986. It has been published since 1988. It publishes peer reviewed original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. It has been published quarterly in English since 2009 (on the first day of January, April, July, and October). In addition, it has also become the official journal of the International Spinal Pain Society since 2016. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals. The circulation number per issue is 50.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信