Yavuz GÜRKAN, Tülay HOŞTEN, Murat TEKİN, Sertan ACAR, Mine SOLAK, Kamil TOKER

Brakiyal pleksus bloğunda ultrason eşliğinde supraklavikuler ve infraklavikuler yaklaşımın karşılaştırılması

Amaç: Ultrason rehberliğinde yapılan supraklaviküler ve infraklaviküler bloklar üst ekstremite cerrahisinde sıklıkla uygulanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın birinci amacı ultrason rehberliğinde yapılan supraklaviküler ve infraklaviküler blokların, blok başarısı, blok başlama zamanı ve blok uygulama zamanının, ikinci amacı ise iğne yönlendirme sayısının ve istenmeyen yan etkilerin görülme sıklığının karşılaştırılmasıydı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Hastalar (n=110) supraklaviküler (Grup S) ve infraklaviküler (Grup İ) olmak üzere iki gruba ayrıldı. Lokal anestezik olarak tüm hastalara 20 ml %5lik levobupivakain ve 10 ml %2lik lidokain karışımı uygulandı. Duyu skoru yedi terminal sinirde 30 dk boyunca her 10 dk da bir olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Gruplar arasında blok oluşma süresi (Grup İ: 12.5±5; Grup S: 11.6±4 dk) ve blok başarısı (Grup İ: %92.7; Grup S: %83.6) benzerdi. Blok uygulama süresi Grup İde Grup Sden anlamlı derecede kısaydı (194.4±65; 226.3±59 sn) (p

Comparison of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches for brachial plexus blockade

Objectives: Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular blocks are commonly used for upper extremity surgery. The primary aims of our study were to compare block success, block onset times and performance times; secondary aims were to compare the number of needle advancements, and incidence of adverse events of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular or infraclavicular blocks. Methods: 110 patients were randomized into two groups: supraclavicular (Group S) and infraclavicular (Group I). All the patients were given a mixture of 20 ml 0.5% levobupivacaine and 10 ml 2% lidocaine as local anesthetics. The sensory score of the seven terminal nerves was assessed every 10 min for 30 min. Results: Block success (Group I: 92.7%; Gorup S: 83.6%) and block onset time (Group I: 12.5±4.8; Group S: 11.6±3.9 min) were similar between the groups. Block performance time was shorter in Group I, than Group S (194.4±65; 226.3±59 sec, P<0.05). The number of needle advancements were lower in Group I than Group S (p<0.05). The Group I patients had a significantly improved block of the median and ulnar nerves than Group S, and Group S patients had a better block of the medial cutaneous nerve, than Group I (p<0.05). Horner syndrome was observed in 9 patients (16.3%) and paresthesia in one patient (1.8%) in Group S. Conclusion: Similar block features were observed with infraclavicular and supraclavicular approaches, but infraclavicular block may be preferable to supraclavicular block due to the lower incidence of transient adverse events.

PDF

___

1. Perlas A, Niazi A, McCartney C, Chan V, Xu D, Abbas S. The sensitivity of motor response to nerve stimulation and paresthesia for nerve localization as evaluated by ultrasound. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2006;31(5):445-50.
2. Sauter AR, Dodgson MS, Stubhaug A, Cvancarova M, Klaastad O. Ultrasound controlled nerve stimulation in the elbow region: high currents and short distances needed to obtain motor responses. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2007;51(7):942-8.
3. Tsai TP, Vuckovic I, Dilberovic F, Obhodzas M, Kapur E, Divanovic KA, et al. Intensity of the stimulating current may not be a reliable indicator of intraneural needle placement. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008;33(3):207-10.
4. Fanelli G, Casati A, Garancini P, Torri G. Nerve stimulator and multiple injection technique for upper and lower limb blockade: failure rate, patient acceptance, and neurologic complications. Study Group on Regional Anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1999;88(4):847-52.
5. Brown DL, Bridenbaugh LD. The upper extremity somatic block. In: Cousins MJ, Bridenbaugh PO, editors. Neural blockade. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998:345-370.
6. Casati A, Danelli G, Baciarello M, Corradi M, Leone S, Di Cianni S, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison between ultrasound and nerve stimulation guidance for multiple injection axillary brachial plexus block. Anesthesiology 2007;106(5):992-6.
7. Perlas A, Lobo G, Lo N, Brull R, Chan VW, Karkhanis R. Ultrasound- guided supraclavicular block: outcome of 510 consecutive cases. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2009;34(2):171-6.
8. Soares LG, Brull R, Lai J, Chan VW. Eight ball, corner pocket: the optimal needle position for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007;32(1):94-5.
9. Klaastad Ø, Smith HJ, Smedby O, Winther-Larssen EH, Brodal P, Breivik H, et al. A novel infraclavicular brachial plexus block: the lateral and sagittal technique, developed by magnetic resonance imaging studies. Anesth Analg 2004;98(1):252-6.
10. Sauter AR, Dodgson MS, Stubhaug A, Halstensen AM, Klaastad Ø. Electrical nerve stimulation or ultrasound guidance for lateral sagittal infraclavicular blocks: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, comparative study. Anesth Analg 2008;106(6):1910-5.
11. Franco CD, Vieira ZE. 1,001 subclavian perivascular brachial plexus blocks: success with a nerve stimulator. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2000;25(1):41-6.
12. Arcand G, Williams SR, Chouinard P, Boudreault D, Harris P, Ruel M, et al. Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular versus supraclavicular block. Anesth Analg 2005;101(3):886-90.
13. Koscielniak-Nielsen ZJ, Frederiksen BS, Rasmussen H, Hesselbjerg L. A comparison of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular blocks for upper extremity surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009;53(5):620-6.
14. Chan VW, Perlas A, Rawson R, Odukoya O. Ultrasoundguided supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Anesth Analg 2003;97(5):1514-7.
15. Gürkan Y, Acar S, Solak M, Toker K. Comparison of nerve stimulation vs. ultrasound-guided lateral sagittal infraclavicular block. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2008;52(6):851-5.
16. Sandhu NS, Capan LM. Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block. Br J Anaesth 2002;89(2):254-9.
17. Sáinz López J, Prat Vallribera A, Seguí Pericas M, Samà Pujolar A, Calleja Abad M, Sabater Recolons J, et al. Ultrasoundguided supraclavicular brachial plexus block with small volumes of local anesthetic: technical description and analysis of results. [Article in Spanish] Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2006;53(7):400-7. [Abstract]
18. Wedel DJ. Nerve blocks. In: Miller RD, editor. Anesthesia. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone; 2000. p. 1523-5.
19. Bhatia A, Lai J, Chan VW, Brull R. Case report: pneumothorax as a complication of the ultrasound-guided supraclavicular approach for brachial plexus block. Anesth Analg 2010;111(3):817-9.
20. Koscielniak-Nielsen ZJ, Rasmussen H, Hesselbjerg L. Pneumothorax after an ultrasound-guided lateral sagittal infraclavicular block. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2008;52(8):1176- 7.
21. Neal JM, Moore JM, Kopacz DJ, Liu SS, Kramer DJ, Plorde JJ. Quantitative analysis of respiratory, motor, and sensory function after supraclavicular block. Anesth Analg 1998;86(6):1239-44.
22. Yang CW, Kwon HU, Cho CK, Jung SM, Kang PS, Park ES, et al. A comparison of infraclavicular and supraclavicular approaches to the brachial plexus using neurostimulation. Korean J Anesthesiol 2010;58(3):260-6.
23. Hoşten T, Gürkan Y, Solak M, Toker K. A case of Horners syndrome following lateral sagittal infraclavicular block. Agri 2008;20(4):45-8.
24. Knoblanche GE. The incidence and aetiology of phrenic nerve blockade associated with supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Anaesth Intensive Care 1979;7(4):346-9.
25. Tekin M, Gürkan Y, Baykal Ceylan D, Solak M, Toker M. Ultrason rehberliğinde bilateral infraklavikuler blok: Olgu sunumu. Ağrı 2010;22:41-3.
26. Sandhu NS, Manne JS, Medabalmi PK, Capan LM. Sonographically guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block in adults: a retrospective analysis of 1146 cases. J Ultrasound Med 2006;25(12):1555-61.