横间工艺阻塞:注意方法上的差异。

Raghuraman M Sethuraman
{"title":"横间工艺阻塞:注意方法上的差异。","authors":"Raghuraman M Sethuraman","doi":"10.17085/apm.23050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"published case report that described three cases wherein a bolus inter-transverse process block (ITPB) plus a continuous erector spinae plane block was provided for pain relief during video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery [1]. I greatly appreciate the authors for their innovative applications and excellent presentations of these cases. I wish to present my clarifications on the difference between the two blocks, namely the costotransverse foramen block (CTFB) and mid-point transverse process to pleura block (MTPB), that are collectively named “ITPB” as per the recent nomenclature. Yamamoto et al. [1] provided a CTFB for the first case. I am uncertain whether the description of this technique, as per Fig. 1 of Yamamoto et al. [1], is correct because the needle direction is from caudad to cephalad. This is in contrast to the original description by Nielsen et al. [2], wherein the needle trajectory was from cephalad to caudad, and the needle tip was placed at the neck of the rib attached to the cranial portion of the caudad transverse process for the local anesthetic injection. Furthermore, the needle tip was placed at the midpoint between the transverse process and pleura, as described by Yamamoto et al. [1], which is similar to the MTPB [3]. I believe that this confusion occurred because Yamamoto et al. [1] cited the study by Shibata et al. [4] as a reference for CTFB. Because of this change in the needle direction, it is also uncertain whether the description of the CTFB injection site, as per Fig. 3 of Yamamoto et al. [1], is correct. The CTFB injection site should be over the neck of the rib attached to the caudal transverse process, in accordance with the original description by Nielsen et al. [2], and not closer to the cranial transverse process. The site of the MTPB injection was described correctly in Fig. 3, although the ultrasound image describing the method of MTPB for cases 2 or 3, was not provided [1]. To conclude, many interfascial plane blocks have been Letter to the Editor Anesth Pain Med [Epub ahead of print] https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23050 pISSN 1975-5171 • eISSN 2383-7977","PeriodicalId":7801,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and pain medicine","volume":"18 3","pages":"325-326"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f2/b1/apm-23050.PMC10410541.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-transverse process blocks: caution about difference in methods.\",\"authors\":\"Raghuraman M Sethuraman\",\"doi\":\"10.17085/apm.23050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"published case report that described three cases wherein a bolus inter-transverse process block (ITPB) plus a continuous erector spinae plane block was provided for pain relief during video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery [1]. I greatly appreciate the authors for their innovative applications and excellent presentations of these cases. I wish to present my clarifications on the difference between the two blocks, namely the costotransverse foramen block (CTFB) and mid-point transverse process to pleura block (MTPB), that are collectively named “ITPB” as per the recent nomenclature. Yamamoto et al. [1] provided a CTFB for the first case. I am uncertain whether the description of this technique, as per Fig. 1 of Yamamoto et al. [1], is correct because the needle direction is from caudad to cephalad. This is in contrast to the original description by Nielsen et al. [2], wherein the needle trajectory was from cephalad to caudad, and the needle tip was placed at the neck of the rib attached to the cranial portion of the caudad transverse process for the local anesthetic injection. Furthermore, the needle tip was placed at the midpoint between the transverse process and pleura, as described by Yamamoto et al. [1], which is similar to the MTPB [3]. I believe that this confusion occurred because Yamamoto et al. [1] cited the study by Shibata et al. [4] as a reference for CTFB. Because of this change in the needle direction, it is also uncertain whether the description of the CTFB injection site, as per Fig. 3 of Yamamoto et al. [1], is correct. The CTFB injection site should be over the neck of the rib attached to the caudal transverse process, in accordance with the original description by Nielsen et al. [2], and not closer to the cranial transverse process. The site of the MTPB injection was described correctly in Fig. 3, although the ultrasound image describing the method of MTPB for cases 2 or 3, was not provided [1]. To conclude, many interfascial plane blocks have been Letter to the Editor Anesth Pain Med [Epub ahead of print] https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23050 pISSN 1975-5171 • eISSN 2383-7977\",\"PeriodicalId\":7801,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia and pain medicine\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"325-326\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f2/b1/apm-23050.PMC10410541.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia and pain medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23050\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and pain medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inter-transverse process blocks: caution about difference in methods.
published case report that described three cases wherein a bolus inter-transverse process block (ITPB) plus a continuous erector spinae plane block was provided for pain relief during video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery [1]. I greatly appreciate the authors for their innovative applications and excellent presentations of these cases. I wish to present my clarifications on the difference between the two blocks, namely the costotransverse foramen block (CTFB) and mid-point transverse process to pleura block (MTPB), that are collectively named “ITPB” as per the recent nomenclature. Yamamoto et al. [1] provided a CTFB for the first case. I am uncertain whether the description of this technique, as per Fig. 1 of Yamamoto et al. [1], is correct because the needle direction is from caudad to cephalad. This is in contrast to the original description by Nielsen et al. [2], wherein the needle trajectory was from cephalad to caudad, and the needle tip was placed at the neck of the rib attached to the cranial portion of the caudad transverse process for the local anesthetic injection. Furthermore, the needle tip was placed at the midpoint between the transverse process and pleura, as described by Yamamoto et al. [1], which is similar to the MTPB [3]. I believe that this confusion occurred because Yamamoto et al. [1] cited the study by Shibata et al. [4] as a reference for CTFB. Because of this change in the needle direction, it is also uncertain whether the description of the CTFB injection site, as per Fig. 3 of Yamamoto et al. [1], is correct. The CTFB injection site should be over the neck of the rib attached to the caudal transverse process, in accordance with the original description by Nielsen et al. [2], and not closer to the cranial transverse process. The site of the MTPB injection was described correctly in Fig. 3, although the ultrasound image describing the method of MTPB for cases 2 or 3, was not provided [1]. To conclude, many interfascial plane blocks have been Letter to the Editor Anesth Pain Med [Epub ahead of print] https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23050 pISSN 1975-5171 • eISSN 2383-7977
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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