超声与神经刺激器引导坐骨神经前路阻滞的比较研究。

W. A. Amin, M. A. Seada, M. M. Elkersh, A. Mathai, Sona Medekova, T. Husain
{"title":"超声与神经刺激器引导坐骨神经前路阻滞的比较研究。","authors":"W. A. Amin, M. A. Seada, M. M. Elkersh, A. Mathai, Sona Medekova, T. Husain","doi":"10.5339/JEMTAC.2020.QHC.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nThe aim of the current study was to compare block of the sciatic nerve through the anterior approach by two methods, namely, the nerve-stimulator guided and ultrasound-guided, with or without nerve stimulation, with regard to the ease of performance, reliability and safety of this approach.\n\n\nPATIENTS AND METHODS\n36 adult patients were randomly allocated equally into one of 2 main groups: \"Nerve Stimulator-Guided Group (NSG)\" where the nerve was located by nerve stimulator only and \"Ultrasound guided group (USG)\" where the sciatic nerves were blocked by a stimulated needle under guidance of the ultrasound. Assessment of performing each technique, sensory and motor blockades, occurrence of acute systemic toxicity and haematoma formation were compared.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOnly one-third of the sciatic nerves could be visualized by US. This did not affect the block execution time but caused less number of needle passes in a statistically significant value. Sensory and motor block showed significant differences between the 2 groups. Criteria of acute systemic toxicity and occurrence of hematoma were not reported in both groups.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nResults of the current study showed that the addition of ultrasound to nerve stimulator in the anterior approach to the sciatic nerve block added only little to the ease of performance, reliability and safety. This was because only one-third of the nerves could be seen. More practice, better machines and new blocking techniques may be needed to overcome the problem of anisotropy of the nerve.","PeriodicalId":35975,"journal":{"name":"Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":"23 2 1","pages":"185-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN ULTRASOUND AND NERVE STIMULATOR GUIDED SCIATIC NERVE BLOCK THROUGH THE ANTERIOR APPROACH.\",\"authors\":\"W. A. Amin, M. A. Seada, M. M. Elkersh, A. Mathai, Sona Medekova, T. Husain\",\"doi\":\"10.5339/JEMTAC.2020.QHC.10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION\\nThe aim of the current study was to compare block of the sciatic nerve through the anterior approach by two methods, namely, the nerve-stimulator guided and ultrasound-guided, with or without nerve stimulation, with regard to the ease of performance, reliability and safety of this approach.\\n\\n\\nPATIENTS AND METHODS\\n36 adult patients were randomly allocated equally into one of 2 main groups: \\\"Nerve Stimulator-Guided Group (NSG)\\\" where the nerve was located by nerve stimulator only and \\\"Ultrasound guided group (USG)\\\" where the sciatic nerves were blocked by a stimulated needle under guidance of the ultrasound. Assessment of performing each technique, sensory and motor blockades, occurrence of acute systemic toxicity and haematoma formation were compared.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nOnly one-third of the sciatic nerves could be visualized by US. This did not affect the block execution time but caused less number of needle passes in a statistically significant value. Sensory and motor block showed significant differences between the 2 groups. Criteria of acute systemic toxicity and occurrence of hematoma were not reported in both groups.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nResults of the current study showed that the addition of ultrasound to nerve stimulator in the anterior approach to the sciatic nerve block added only little to the ease of performance, reliability and safety. This was because only one-third of the nerves could be seen. More practice, better machines and new blocking techniques may be needed to overcome the problem of anisotropy of the nerve.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"23 2 1\",\"pages\":\"185-91\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5339/JEMTAC.2020.QHC.10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5339/JEMTAC.2020.QHC.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本研究的目的是比较两种方法,即神经刺激器引导和超声引导下,在有或没有神经刺激的情况下,通过前路阻滞坐骨神经,对该方法的易用性、可靠性和安全性进行比较。患者与方法36例成年患者随机分为两组:仅用神经刺激器定位神经的神经刺激器引导组(NSG)和超声引导组(USG),超声引导下用刺激针阻断坐骨神经。比较各术式的评分、感觉及运动阻滞、急性全身毒性及血肿形成情况。结果超声成像仅能显示三分之一的坐骨神经。这并不影响块的执行时间,但在统计上显著减少了指针通过的次数。感觉和运动阻滞在两组间有显著性差异。两组均未报告急性全身毒性和血肿的发生标准。结论本研究结果表明,在坐骨神经阻滞前入路中加入超声神经刺激器仅增加了操作的便捷性、可靠性和安全性。这是因为只能看到三分之一的神经。为了克服神经各向异性的问题,可能需要更多的练习,更好的机器和新的阻断技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN ULTRASOUND AND NERVE STIMULATOR GUIDED SCIATIC NERVE BLOCK THROUGH THE ANTERIOR APPROACH.
INTRODUCTION The aim of the current study was to compare block of the sciatic nerve through the anterior approach by two methods, namely, the nerve-stimulator guided and ultrasound-guided, with or without nerve stimulation, with regard to the ease of performance, reliability and safety of this approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS 36 adult patients were randomly allocated equally into one of 2 main groups: "Nerve Stimulator-Guided Group (NSG)" where the nerve was located by nerve stimulator only and "Ultrasound guided group (USG)" where the sciatic nerves were blocked by a stimulated needle under guidance of the ultrasound. Assessment of performing each technique, sensory and motor blockades, occurrence of acute systemic toxicity and haematoma formation were compared. RESULTS Only one-third of the sciatic nerves could be visualized by US. This did not affect the block execution time but caused less number of needle passes in a statistically significant value. Sensory and motor block showed significant differences between the 2 groups. Criteria of acute systemic toxicity and occurrence of hematoma were not reported in both groups. CONCLUSION Results of the current study showed that the addition of ultrasound to nerve stimulator in the anterior approach to the sciatic nerve block added only little to the ease of performance, reliability and safety. This was because only one-third of the nerves could be seen. More practice, better machines and new blocking techniques may be needed to overcome the problem of anisotropy of the nerve.
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
Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology
Middle East Journal of Anesthesiology Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The journal is published three times a year (February, June, and October) and has an Editorial Executive Committee from the department and consultant editors from various Arab countries. A volume consists of six issues. Presently, it is in its 42nd year of publication and is currently in its 19th volume. It has a worldwide circulation and effective March 2008, the MEJA has become an electronic journal. The main objective of the journal is to act as a forum for publication, education, and exchange of opinions, and to promote research and publications of the Middle Eastern heritage of medicine and anesthesia.
×
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