A randomized comparison between neurostimulation and ultrasound-guided lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block.

U.S. Army Medical Department journal Pub Date : 2017-07-01
Gaurav Gupta, Mohan Radhakrishna, Isaac Tamblyn, D Q Tran, Markus Besemann, Atikun Thonnagith, Maria Francisca Elgueta, Marie Eve Robitaille, Roderick J Finlayson
{"title":"A randomized comparison between neurostimulation and ultrasound-guided lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block.","authors":"Gaurav Gupta,&nbsp;Mohan Radhakrishna,&nbsp;Isaac Tamblyn,&nbsp;D Q Tran,&nbsp;Markus Besemann,&nbsp;Atikun Thonnagith,&nbsp;Maria Francisca Elgueta,&nbsp;Marie Eve Robitaille,&nbsp;Roderick J Finlayson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This prospective, randomized trial compared neurostimulation (NS) and ultrasound (US) guided lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) block. We hypothesized that US would result in a shorter total anesthesia-related time (sum of performance and onset times).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-one volunteers were enrolled. The right lower limb was randomized to an NS- or US-guided LFCN block. The alternate technique was employed for the left lower limb. With NS, paresthesias were sought in the lateral thigh at a stimulatory threshold of 0.6 mA (pulse width=0.3 ms; frequency=2 Hz) or lower. With US, local anesthetic was deposited under the inguinal ligament, ventral to the iliopsoas muscle. In both groups, 5 mL of lidocaine 2% were used to anesthetize the nerve. During the procedure of the block, the performance time and number of needle passes were recorded. Subsequently, a blinded observer assessed sensory block in the lateral thigh every minute until 20 minutes. Success was defined as loss of pinprick sensation at a point midway between the anterior superior iliac spine and the lateral knee line. The blinded observer also assessed the areas of sensory block in the anterior, medial, lateral, and posterior aspects of the thigh and mapped this distribution onto a corresponding grid.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both modalities provided comparable success rates (76.2%-95.2%), performance times (162.1 to 231.3 seconds), onset times (300.0 to 307.5 seconds) and total anesthesia related-times (480.1 to 554.0 seconds). However US required fewer needle passes (3.2±2.9 vs 9.5±12.2; P=.009). There were no intergroup differences in terms of the distribution of the anesthetized cutaneous areas. However considerable variability was encountered between individuals and between the 2 sides of a same subject. The most common areas of sensory loss included the central lateral two-eighths anteriorly and the central antero-inferior three-eighths laterally.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ultrasound guidance and NS provide similar success rates and total anesthesia-related times for LFCN block. The territory of the LFCN displays wide inter- and intra-individual variability.</p>","PeriodicalId":88789,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Army Medical Department journal","volume":" 2-17","pages":"33-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"U.S. Army Medical Department journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This prospective, randomized trial compared neurostimulation (NS) and ultrasound (US) guided lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) block. We hypothesized that US would result in a shorter total anesthesia-related time (sum of performance and onset times).

Methods: Twenty-one volunteers were enrolled. The right lower limb was randomized to an NS- or US-guided LFCN block. The alternate technique was employed for the left lower limb. With NS, paresthesias were sought in the lateral thigh at a stimulatory threshold of 0.6 mA (pulse width=0.3 ms; frequency=2 Hz) or lower. With US, local anesthetic was deposited under the inguinal ligament, ventral to the iliopsoas muscle. In both groups, 5 mL of lidocaine 2% were used to anesthetize the nerve. During the procedure of the block, the performance time and number of needle passes were recorded. Subsequently, a blinded observer assessed sensory block in the lateral thigh every minute until 20 minutes. Success was defined as loss of pinprick sensation at a point midway between the anterior superior iliac spine and the lateral knee line. The blinded observer also assessed the areas of sensory block in the anterior, medial, lateral, and posterior aspects of the thigh and mapped this distribution onto a corresponding grid.

Results: Both modalities provided comparable success rates (76.2%-95.2%), performance times (162.1 to 231.3 seconds), onset times (300.0 to 307.5 seconds) and total anesthesia related-times (480.1 to 554.0 seconds). However US required fewer needle passes (3.2±2.9 vs 9.5±12.2; P=.009). There were no intergroup differences in terms of the distribution of the anesthetized cutaneous areas. However considerable variability was encountered between individuals and between the 2 sides of a same subject. The most common areas of sensory loss included the central lateral two-eighths anteriorly and the central antero-inferior three-eighths laterally.

Conclusion: Ultrasound guidance and NS provide similar success rates and total anesthesia-related times for LFCN block. The territory of the LFCN displays wide inter- and intra-individual variability.

神经刺激与超声引导下股外侧皮神经阻滞的随机比较。
背景:这项前瞻性随机试验比较了神经刺激(NS)和超声(US)引导的股外侧皮神经(LFCN)阻滞。我们假设US会导致更短的全麻醉相关时间(表现和发作时间的总和)。方法:招募21名志愿者。右下肢随机分配到NS或us引导的LFCN阻滞组。左下肢采用交替技术。使用NS,在0.6 mA的刺激阈值(脉宽=0.3 ms;频率= 2hz)或更低。在US中,局部麻醉剂在髂腰肌腹侧的腹股沟韧带下沉积。两组均用2%利多卡因5 mL麻醉神经。在打孔过程中,记录打孔时间和打针次数。随后,盲法观察者每分钟评估一次大腿外侧的感觉阻滞,直到20分钟。成功的定义是在髂前上棘和膝外侧线之间的中间点失去针刺感。盲法观察者还评估了大腿前部、内侧、外侧和后部的感觉阻滞区域,并将其分布映射到相应的网格上。结果:两种方式的成功率(76.2% ~ 95.2%)、执行时间(162.1 ~ 231.3秒)、起效时间(3000.0 ~ 307.5秒)和全麻醉相关时间(480.1 ~ 554.0秒)相当。然而,美国需要较少的针道(3.2±2.9 vs 9.5±12.2);P = .009)。麻醉皮肤区域的分布没有组间差异。然而,在个体之间以及同一主题的两个方面之间会遇到相当大的差异。最常见的感觉丧失区域包括中央外侧的八分之二和中央前-下外侧的八分之三。结论:超声引导与NS对LFCN阻滞的成功率和全麻醉相关时间相似。LFCN的范围显示出广泛的个体间和个体内的变异性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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