Unzueta-Navarro D, Peralta-Zamora E, Zaragoza-Lemus G, González FML

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 208-215
PDF size: 124.50 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the clinical characteristics, quality, complications and patient satisfaction with interscalene brachial plexus block using a nerve stimulator versus the paresthesia technique for shoulder and proximal humerus surgery. Methods: A randomized clinical trial with two groups of participants was conducted at the National Center of Rehabilitation; group N stands for the neurostimulation group and group P for the paresthesia group. In both groups we used the same type, dose and volume of local anesthetic. Quality, success, latency, duration and complications in shoulder and proximal humerus bone surgery, were evaluated. Results: Seventy-eight patients participated in the study (N= 40; P= 38). Both groups were similar in their general characteristics. The block quality was the same in both groups. The success rate was 90% in group N and 89.47% in group P with no statistically significant difference (p › 0.05). Latency and duration were similar in both groups. No transient neurological symptoms or complications appeared in any group. Patients’ satisfaction was higher in group N. Conclusions: There is no difference in localization of plexus by nerve stimulator method versus paresthesia method for interscalene block in shoulder and proximal humerus surgery. The quality, latency, duration, rate of success and complications were similar in both cases, but the patients’ satisfaction was higher in the nerve stimulator group.

REFERENCES

1. Entralgo PL. Historia de la medicina moderna y contemporánea, 2ª ed., Barcelona-Madrid, Científico-Médica, 1963.

2. Entralgo PL, Albarracín A, Gracia GD. Fisiología de la ilustración. En: Historia Universal de la Medicina, Barcelona, Salvat, 1973:45-62.

3. Winnie AP. Interscalene brachial plexus block. Anesth Analg 1970;49:455-466.

4. Urmey WF, Grossi P. Percutaneous electrode guidance: A noninvasive technique for prelocation of peripheral nerves to facilitate peripheral plexus or nerve block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2002;27:261-267.

5. Hadzic A, Vloka JD. Peripheral nerve stimulator for unassisted nerve blockade. Anesthesiology 1996;84:1528-1529.

6. Selander D. Paresthesias or no paresthesias? Nerve Complications after neural blockades. Acta Anaesth Belg 1988;39:173-174.

7. Baranowski AP, Pither CE. A comparison of three methods of axillary brachial plexus anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 1990;45:362-365.

8. Roch JJ, Sharrock NE. Interscalene brachial plexus block for shoulder surgery: A proximal paresthesia is effective. Anesth Analg 1992;75:386-388.

9. Salvatore S, Bartoli M, et al. Multiple-injection axillary plexus block: A comparison of two methods of nerve localization-nerve stimulation versus paresthesia. Anesth Analg 2000;91:647-651.

10. Devera H. Use of the nerve stimulator in teaching regional anesthesia techniques (letter). Reg Anesth 1991;16:188.

11. Phillips W. An argument against use of the nerve stimulator for peripheral nerve blocks. Reg Anesth 1992;17:309-310.

12. Sánchez AR, Torres DJA. Estadística Elemental 7. La Habana. Ed. Pueblo y educación. 1989.

13. Scott B. Técnicas de anestesia regional, 2a. edición, Editorial Panamericana, España, 2001.

14. Danilo J, Harrop GW. Regional Nerve Blocks & Infiltration Therapy. 3rd. Ed, Landsermany by Bosh Druck, Landshut, Blackwell English 2004.

15. Silverstain WB, Salyed MU. Interscalene block with a nerve stimulator: A deltoid motor response is satisfactory endpoint for successful block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2000;25:356-359.

16. Urmey WF. Inability to consistently elicit a motor response following sensory paresthesia during interscalene block administration. Anesthesiology 2000;96:552-554.

17. Fanelli G, Casati A. Nerve stimulator and multiple injection technique for upper and lower limb blockade: failure rate, patient acceptance, and neurologic complications. Anesth Analg 1999;88:847-852.

18. Bollini CA, Urmey WF. Relationship between evoked motor and sensory paresthesia in interscalene brachial plexus block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003;28:384-388.

19. José de Andrés, Blanch XS. Peripheral nerve in the practice of brachial plexus anesthesia. A review. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001;26:478-483.

20. Karaca P. Painful paresthesia are infrequent during brachial plexus localization using low – current peripheral nerve stimulation. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003;28:380-382.

21. Hadzic A. Peripheral nerve stimulators. Cacking the code–one at a time. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2004;29:185-188.

22. Benumof JL. Permanent loss of cervical spinal cord function associated with interscalene block performed under general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2000;93:1541–1544.

23. Selander D, Edshage S, Wolff T. Paresthesiae or no paresthesiae? Acta Anaesth Scand 1979;23:27-33.

24. Selander D. Paresthesias or no paresthesias? Nerve Complications after neural blockades. Acta Anaesth Belg 1988;39:173-4.