Development of complications in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia vs neurostimulation

Jorge Hernando Sáez MD , Carlos Tornero Tornero MD , Vicente Roqués Escolar MD , Francisco Hernández Méndez MD , Luis Aliaga Font MD, PhD
{"title":"Development of complications in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia vs neurostimulation","authors":"Jorge Hernando Sáez MD ,&nbsp;Carlos Tornero Tornero MD ,&nbsp;Vicente Roqués Escolar MD ,&nbsp;Francisco Hernández Méndez MD ,&nbsp;Luis Aliaga Font MD, PhD","doi":"10.1053/j.trap.2013.03.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The use of peripheral nerve block<span> techniques has significantly increased over the last two decades; as a consequence, development of complications has also increased. Neurostimulation has been the technique of choice for locoregional anesthesia for many years and has even been considered the gold standard. Compared with location by means of paresthesia, this technique reduces the potential risk of postoperative </span></span>neuropathy<span><span>, as it limits any direct contact between the needle and the nerve structure. Neurostimulation provides high efficacy with a minimum complication rate; currently, however, as ultrasound provides real time visualization of the nerve, needle and local anesthetic distribution relationship, the use of neurostimulation is less prevalent. Additionally to an apparent improvement of ultrasound-guided peripheral block success rate, there are also many trials available promoting the decrease of </span>neurologic complications. Thus the unavoidable question comes up: is ultrasound the quality gold standard for locoregional anesthesia today? Should we rule out formerly used techniques? The current evidence for maintaining routine and exclusive use of ultrasound over any other peripheral nerve block method is limited. So, why not use all anesthetic techniques available to us, that is neurostimulation, injection pressure control, and ultrasound, to bring the complication rate down?</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":93817,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in regional anesthesia & pain management","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 152-157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1053/j.trap.2013.03.007","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in regional anesthesia & pain management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1084208X13000207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The use of peripheral nerve block techniques has significantly increased over the last two decades; as a consequence, development of complications has also increased. Neurostimulation has been the technique of choice for locoregional anesthesia for many years and has even been considered the gold standard. Compared with location by means of paresthesia, this technique reduces the potential risk of postoperative neuropathy, as it limits any direct contact between the needle and the nerve structure. Neurostimulation provides high efficacy with a minimum complication rate; currently, however, as ultrasound provides real time visualization of the nerve, needle and local anesthetic distribution relationship, the use of neurostimulation is less prevalent. Additionally to an apparent improvement of ultrasound-guided peripheral block success rate, there are also many trials available promoting the decrease of neurologic complications. Thus the unavoidable question comes up: is ultrasound the quality gold standard for locoregional anesthesia today? Should we rule out formerly used techniques? The current evidence for maintaining routine and exclusive use of ultrasound over any other peripheral nerve block method is limited. So, why not use all anesthetic techniques available to us, that is neurostimulation, injection pressure control, and ultrasound, to bring the complication rate down?

超声引导下区域麻醉与神经刺激的并发症发展
在过去的二十年中,周围神经阻滞技术的使用显著增加;因此,并发症的发生也增加了。多年来,神经刺激一直是局部麻醉的首选技术,甚至被认为是黄金标准。与感觉异常定位相比,该技术减少了术后神经病变的潜在风险,因为它限制了针与神经结构之间的任何直接接触。神经刺激治疗疗效高,并发症发生率低;然而,目前,由于超声提供了神经、针头和局部麻醉剂分布关系的实时可视化,神经刺激的使用不太普遍。除了明显提高超声引导外周阻滞成功率外,也有许多试验可促进神经系统并发症的减少。因此,一个不可避免的问题出现了:超声是今天局部麻醉的质量金标准吗?我们应该排除以前使用的技术吗?目前的证据维持常规和独家使用超声比任何其他周围神经阻滞方法是有限的。那么,为什么不使用所有可用的麻醉技术,比如神经刺激、注射压力控制和超声波,来降低并发症的发生率呢?
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