A comparative evaluation of landmark versus modified technique of superficial cervical plexus nerve block in the maxillofacial surgical practice.

IF 1.7 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Sneha Rathee, Vikas Dhupar, Francis Akkara
{"title":"A comparative evaluation of landmark versus modified technique of superficial cervical plexus nerve block in the maxillofacial surgical practice.","authors":"Sneha Rathee, Vikas Dhupar, Francis Akkara","doi":"10.1007/s10006-025-01389-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to compare two techniques for administering superficial cervical plexus block (SCPB) in maxillofacial surgery: the landmark technique and the modified technique proposed by Hadzic. The research explores whether the modified technique improves precision, accelerates anesthetic onset, and enhances patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, single-blinded, randomized clinical study was conducted on 35 patients undergoing maxillofacial surgical procedures at the Goa Dental College and Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A received SCPB using the landmark technique, and Group B received the modified technique. Both groups underwent additional inferior alveolar and buccal nerve blocks. Key variables measured included time to anesthetic onset, pain levels using the visual analogue scale (VAS), patient comfort, and intraoperative anesthetic requirements. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 22, employing the Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The modified technique demonstrated a significantly shorter mean onset time of anesthesia (4.66 ± 1.27 min) compared to the landmark method (11.72 ± 3.78 min; p < 0.001). Postoperative pain scores after 10 min were significantly lower in the modified group (p < 0.001). Both groups reported high patient comfort, with minimal complications observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, the superficial cervical plexus block is safe and effective for oral and maxillofacial surgeries, providing good anesthesia for the jaw and neck. While generally sufficient, deeper anesthesia may be required for some procedures. Combined with a mandibular nerve block, it offers a reliable alternative to general anesthesia. However, a larger, more diverse sample is needed to evaluate its efficacy across procedures.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":47251,"journal":{"name":"Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Heidelberg","volume":"29 1","pages":"92"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Heidelberg","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-025-01389-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to compare two techniques for administering superficial cervical plexus block (SCPB) in maxillofacial surgery: the landmark technique and the modified technique proposed by Hadzic. The research explores whether the modified technique improves precision, accelerates anesthetic onset, and enhances patient outcomes.

Methods: A prospective, single-blinded, randomized clinical study was conducted on 35 patients undergoing maxillofacial surgical procedures at the Goa Dental College and Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A received SCPB using the landmark technique, and Group B received the modified technique. Both groups underwent additional inferior alveolar and buccal nerve blocks. Key variables measured included time to anesthetic onset, pain levels using the visual analogue scale (VAS), patient comfort, and intraoperative anesthetic requirements. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 22, employing the Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results: The modified technique demonstrated a significantly shorter mean onset time of anesthesia (4.66 ± 1.27 min) compared to the landmark method (11.72 ± 3.78 min; p < 0.001). Postoperative pain scores after 10 min were significantly lower in the modified group (p < 0.001). Both groups reported high patient comfort, with minimal complications observed.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the superficial cervical plexus block is safe and effective for oral and maxillofacial surgeries, providing good anesthesia for the jaw and neck. While generally sufficient, deeper anesthesia may be required for some procedures. Combined with a mandibular nerve block, it offers a reliable alternative to general anesthesia. However, a larger, more diverse sample is needed to evaluate its efficacy across procedures.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

标记与改良颈浅丛神经阻滞技术在颌面外科实践中的比较评价。
目的:比较颌面部外科浅表颈丛阻滞(SCPB)的两种应用方法:标志性技术和改良技术。该研究探讨了改进后的技术是否提高了精度,加速了麻醉的开始,并提高了患者的预后。方法:前瞻性、单盲、随机临床研究对果阿牙科学院和医院接受颌面外科手术的35例患者进行了研究。患者分为两组:A组采用地标技术行SCPB, B组采用改良技术行SCPB。两组均行下牙槽神经和颊神经阻滞。测量的关键变量包括麻醉开始时间,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)的疼痛水平,患者舒适度和术中麻醉需求。数据分析采用SPSS version 22,采用Mann-Whitney U检验和Wilcoxon sign -rank检验。结果:改进后的麻醉平均起效时间(4.66±1.27 min)明显短于标志性方法(11.72±3.78 min);结论:颈浅丛阻滞用于口腔颌面外科手术安全有效,为颌颈提供了良好的麻醉效果。虽然通常足够,但某些手术可能需要更深的麻醉。结合下颌神经阻滞,它提供了一个可靠的替代全身麻醉。然而,需要更大、更多样化的样本来评估其跨程序的有效性。临床试验号:不适用。
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
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Heidelberg
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Heidelberg DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
118
期刊介绍: Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery founded as Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie is a peer-reviewed online journal. It is designed for clinicians as well as researchers.The quarterly journal offers comprehensive coverage of new techniques, important developments and innovative ideas in oral and maxillofacial surgery and interdisciplinary aspects of cranial, facial and oral diseases and their management. The journal publishes papers of the highest scientific merit and widest possible scope on work in oral and maxillofacial surgery as well as supporting specialties. Practice-oriented articles help improve the methods used in oral and maxillofacial surgery.Every aspect of oral and maxillofacial surgery is fully covered through a range of invited review articles, clinical and research articles, technical notes, abstracts, and case reports. Specific topics are: aesthetic facial surgery, clinical pathology, computer-assisted surgery, congenital and craniofacial deformities, dentoalveolar surgery, head and neck oncology, implant dentistry, oral medicine, orthognathic surgery, reconstructive surgery, skull base surgery, TMJ and trauma.Time-limited reviewing and electronic processing allow to publish articles as fast as possible. Accepted articles are rapidly accessible online.Clinical studies submitted for publication have to include a declaration that they have been approved by an ethical committee according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki 1964 (last amendment during the 52nd World Medical Association General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000). Experimental animal studies have to be carried out according to the principles of laboratory animal care (NIH publication No 86-23, revised 1985).
×
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