Brachial plexus nerve block exhibits prolonged duration in the elderly

BACKGROUND: Upper limb trauma occurs frequently in elderly patients for whom peripheral nerve blocks are often preferred for anesthesia. The characteristics of such regional blocks have, however, never been described in an elderly population. Therefore, the authors assessed prospectively the onset and duration of upper extremity peripheral nerve block (the mid-humeral block) in elderly and young patients undergoing emergency upper extremity surgery. METHODS: Consecutive patients aged > 70 yr or < 70 yr received a mid-humeral block with a small volume of ropivacaine, 0.75%. Five milliliters was injected onto each of the musculocutaneous, radial, ulnar, and median nerves. Time to complete sensory and motor block and durations of complete sensory and motor block were assessed. Results are shown as median and its 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Median ages were 77 yr (95% CI, 72-81 yr) and 39 yr (95% CI, 27-46 yr) in the two groups. Both groups had similar times to complete sensory blockade. The elderly group had longer durations of complete sensory (390 min [range, 280-435 min] vs.150 min [range, 105-160 min]; P< 0.05) and motor (357 min [range, 270-475 min] vs. 150 min [range, 90-210 min]; P< 0.05) blockade. Duration of complete sensory block was significantly correlated with age (rho = 0.56; P< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Age is a major determinant of duration of complete motor and sensory blockade with peripheral nerve block, perhaps reflecting increased sensitivity to conduction failure from local anesthetic agents in peripheral nerves in the elderly population.     

Perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine: network meta-analysis of adjunctive effects on supraclavicular brachial plexus block

Both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine are used as local anaesthetic adjuncts to enhance peripheral nerve block characteristics. However, the effects of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine based on their administration routes have not been directly compared, and the relative extent to which each adjunct prolongs sensory blockade remains unclear. This network meta-analysis sought to compare and rank the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as supraclavicular block adjuncts. We sought randomised trials investigating the effects of adding perineural and intravenous dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine to long-acting local anaesthetics on supraclavicular block characteristics, including time to block onset and durations of sensory, motor and analgesic blockade. Data were compared and ranked according to relative effectiveness for each outcome. Our primary outcome was sensory block duration, with a 2-h difference considered clinically important. We performed a frequentist analysis, using the GRADE framework to appraise evidence. One-hundred trials (5728 patients) were included. Expressed as mean (95%CI), the control group (local anaesthetic alone) had a duration of sensory block of 401 (366–435) min, motor block duration of 369 (330–408) min and analgesic duration of 435 (386-483) min. Compared with control, sensory block was prolonged most by intravenous dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 477 (160–795) min], followed by perineural dexamethasone [411 (343–480) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [284 (235–333) min]. Motor block was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 294 (236–352) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [289 (129–448)min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [258 (212–304)min]. Analgesic duration was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 518 (448–589) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [478 (277–679) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [318 (266–371) min]. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not prolong sensory, motor or analgesic block durations. No major network inconsistencies were found. The quality of evidence for intravenous dexamethasone, perineural dexamethasone and perineural dexmedetomidine for prolongation of supraclavicular sensory block duration was 'low', 'very low' and 'low', respectively. Regardless of route, dexamethasone as an adjunct prolonged the durations of sensory and analgesic blockade to a greater extent than dexmedetomidine. Differences in block characteristics between perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were not clinically important. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not affect block characteristics.     

The effect of adding intrathecal magnesium sulphate to bupivacaine-fentanyl spinal anaesthesia

BACKGROUND: The addition of intrathecal (IT) magnesium to spinal fentanyl prolongs the duration of spinal analgesia for vaginal delivery. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study, we investigated the effect of adding IT magnesium sulphate to bupivacaine-fentanyl spinal anaesthesia. METHODS: One hundred and two ASA I or II adult patients undergoing lower extremity surgery were recruited. They were randomly allocated to receive 1.0 ml of preservative-free 0.9% sodium chloride (group S) or 50 mg of magnesium sulphate 5% (1.0 ml) (group M) following 10 mg of bupivacaine 0.5% plus 25 microg of fentanyl intrathecally. We recorded the following: onset and duration of sensory block, the highest level of sensory block, the time to reach the highest dermatomal level of sensory block and to complete motor block recovery and the duration of spinal anaesthesia. RESULTS: Magnesium caused a delay in the onset of both sensory and motor blockade. The highest level of sensory block was significantly lower in group M than in group S at 5, 10 and 15 min (P < 0.001). The median time to reach the highest dermatomal level of sensory block was 17 min in group M and 13 min in group S (P < 0.05). The mean degree of motor block was also lower in group M at 5, 10 and 15 min (P < 0.001). The median duration of spinal anaesthesia was longer in group M (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing lower extremity surgery, the addition of IT magnesium sulphate (50 mg) to spinal anaesthesia induced by bupivacaine and fentanyl significantly delayed the onset of both sensory and motor blockade, but also prolonged the period of anaesthesia without additional side-effects.     

Sciatic nerve block via posterior Labat approach is more efficient than lateral popliteal approach using a double-injection technique: a prospective, randomized comparison

BACKGROUND: For peripheral nerve blockade, the double-injection technique proved to be superior to a single injection in previous investigations. The current study was designed to compare onset time and efficacy of two different double-injection approaches for sciatic nerve block with 0.75% ropivacaine. METHODS: A total of 50 patients undergoing foot surgery were randomly assigned to receive sciatic nerve blockade by means of the classic (Labat) posterior approach (n = 25) or a lateral popliteal approach (n = 25). All blocks were performed with the use of a nerve stimulator, and both major components of the sciatic nerve (tibial and common peroneal nerves) received separately 10 ml ropivacaine, 0.75%. Success rate was defined as a complete sensory and motor block associated with pain-free surgery. RESULTS: A greater success rate was observed in the classic group (96%) as compared with the popliteal group (68%; P < 0.05). A general anesthetic became necessary in six patients (24%) with the lateral popliteal approach and none with the classic approach (P < 0.05). The onset of complete sensory and motor blockade was significantly faster in the classic group (12 +/- 6 min) as compared with the popliteal group (26 +/- 10 min; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A double injection with a relatively low volume of 0.75% ropivacaine generated a higher success rate and a shorter onset time of sensory and motor blockade after the classic Labat approach than after a lateral popliteal approach.     

Ulnar nerve block induced by the new local anesthetic IQB-9302 in healthy volunteers: a comparison with bupivacaine.

We evaluated the duration of sensory anesthesia after blockade of the ulnar nerve of IQB-9302, a new local amide anesthetic, compared with bupivacaine. A double-blinded, randomized, cross-over study in 12 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 35 yr was performed. Three milliliters of 0.25% IQB-9302 was administered in one wrist and bupivacaine in the other. A week later, the blocks were repeated with a concentration of 0.5%. These concentrations were chosen because they seemed to be equipotent in previous studies. The duration of sensory anesthesia was the main variable measured; secondary outcomes were motor block, time to onset, and time to recovery from block. The duration of sensory block was similar for IQB-9302 and bupivacaine at a concentration of 0.25%; median and range: 409 min (0-800 min) for IQB-9302 and 258 min (0-665 min) for bupivacaine (95% confidence interval for the difference from -47 to 545, P = 0.82, Wilcoxon's test). The results with 0.5% were: 525 min (440-735 min) and 690 min (365-1098 min), respectively (P = 0.026). There were no significant differences in the other variables measured. No important adverse reactions were seen. We conclude that IQB-9302 is an effective new local anesthetic for blockade of ulnar nerve at the concentrations tested. IMPLICATIONS: IQB-9302 is a new local anesthetic that has shown a long duration of action and low cardiovascular toxicity in preclinical studies. We report the results of a phase I clinical trial to compare this new drug with bupivacaine for ulnar nerve block.     

Dexamethasone added to lidocaine prolongs axillary brachial plexus blockade

Different additives have been used to prolong regional blockade. We designed a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the effect of dexamethasone added to lidocaine on the onset and duration of axillary brachial plexus block. Sixty patients scheduled for elective hand and forearm surgery under axillary brachial plexus block were randomly allocated to receive either 34 mL lidocaine 1.5% with 2 mL of isotonic saline chloride (control group, n = 30) or 34 mL lidocaine 1.5% with 2 mL of dexamethasone (8 mg) (dexamethasone group, n = 30). Neither epinephrine nor bicarbonate was added to the treatment mixture. We used a nerve stimulator and multiple stimulations technique in all of the patients. After performance of the block, sensory and motor blockade of radial, median, musculocutaneous, and ulnar nerves were recorded at 5, 15, and 30 min. The onset time of the sensory and motor blockade was defined as the time between last injection and the total abolition of the pinprick response and complete paralysis. The duration of sensory and motor blocks were considered as the time interval between the administration of the local anesthetic and the first postoperative pain and complete recovery of motor functions. Sixteen patients were excluded because of unsuccessful blockade. The duration of surgery and the onset times of sensory and motor block were similar in the two groups. The duration of sensory (242 +/- 76 versus 98 +/- 33 min) and motor (310 +/- 81 versus 130 +/- 31 min) blockade were significantly longer in the dexamethasone than in the control group (P < 0.01). We conclude that the addition of dexamethasone to lidocaine 1.5% solution in axillary brachial plexus block prolongs the duration of sensory and motor blockade.     

The Effect of Adding a Minidose of Clonidine to Intrathecal Sufentanil for Labor Analgesia

Background: Preliminary studies have suggested that the addition of clonidine to intrathecal sufentanil prolongs analgesia without producing motor blockade.

Methods: Fifty-three nulliparous women in painful labor were included in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. Parturients at 2- to 5-cm cervical dilation received either 5 [micro sign]g sufentanil plus 30 [micro sign]g clonidine or 5 [micro sign]g sufentanil intrathecally, followed by 5 mg bupivacaine epidurally. The primary outcome was time until first request for additional analgesia. Visual analog pain scores, sensory changes, blood pressure, heart rate, ephedrine requirements, motor blockade, sedation, pruritus, and nausea were also recorded.

Results: All parturients but one had effective analgesia in both groups, with similar sensory levels never exceeding T2. The duration (mean +/- SD) of analgesia was longer in the sufentanil - clonidine group: 125 +/- 46 versus 97 +/- 30 min (P = 0.007). The incidence of hypotension and the ephedrine requirements (median with range) were higher in the sufentanil - clonidine group: 63% versus 12% (P < 0.001) and 7.5 mg [range, 0 - 25.5 mg] versus 0 mg [range, 0 - 6 mg] (P < 0.0001). The incidence of fetal heart rate abnormalities during the first 30 min after intrathecal injection was similar in both groups (17% vs. 19%). No parturient had motor blockade.     

No Enhancement of Sensory and Motor Blockade by Neostigmine Added to Mepivacaine Axillary Plexus Block

Background: Intrathecal neostigmine induces analgesia but also several side effects. Recently, 500 [micro sign]g neostigmine administered intraarticularly was shown to produce postoperative analgesia without side effects. The authors' goal was to determine whether 500 [micro sign]g neostigmine added to mepivacaine in axillary plexus block prolongs postoperative analgesia. In addition, they wanted to determine the incidence of side effects in patients undergoing hand surgery.

Methods: Sixty-nine outpatients scheduled for carpal tunnel syndrome repair with axillary plexus block were randomly assigned to one of three groups that received saline solution in the axillary plexus and subcutaneously (group 1), 500 [micro sign]g neostigmine in the axillary plexus and saline solution subcutaneously (group 2), or saline solution in the axillary plexus and 500 [micro sign]g neostigmine subcutaneously (group 3). Sensory and motor block in the four hand nerve distributions were assessed every 5 min for 30 min. The duration of the sensory and motor blocks were assessed after operation. Side effects were also recorded.

Results: Neostigmine had no effect on sensory and motor block in any of the four nerve distributions, nor did it increase the median duration of sensory block (215 min; range, 120-330 min) compared with group 1 (247 min; range, 190-287 min) or group 3 (236 min; range, 160-280 min). Motor block was slightly shorter (P = 0.045) in group 3 (190 min; range, 135-285 min) compared with group 1 (218 min; range, 145-257 min) and group 2 (215 min; range, 105-343 min). Gastrointestinal side effects occurred in 30% of patients in both neostigmine groups but not in group 1 (P < 0.05).     

Spinal 2-chloroprocaine: a comparison with procaine in volunteers

Recent studies using preservative-free 2-chloroprocaine (2-CP) for spinal anesthesia have shown it to be a reliable short-acting drug that provides similar anesthesia to lidocaine. In this randomized, double-blind, crossover study, we compared the characteristics of spinal 2-CP (30 mg) with those of procaine (80 mg) in eight volunteers to determine whether either drug produces spinal anesthetic characteristics ideal for outpatient surgery. By using sensation to pinprick, transcutaneous electrical stimulation, tolerance to thigh tourniquet, and motor blockade as surrogates for surgical efficacy, 2-CP compared similarly to procaine. Peak block height (T9 [range, T6 to T12] versus T6 [T4 to T8]; P = 0.0796), time to two-segment regression (51 +/- 17 min versus 53 +/- 10 min; P = 0.7434), tourniquet time tolerance (37 +/- 16 versus 49 min +/- 17 min; P = 0.1755), and time to return of motor strength (Bromage scale: 54 +/- 23 min versus 55 +/- 44 min, P = 0.9366; return of 90% quadriceps strength: 78 +/- 9 min versus 98 +/- 30 min; P = 0.0721) were all similar. Procaine did produce overall longer sensory blockade (P = 0.0011) and motor blockade at the gastrocnemius (P = 0.0004) and quadriceps (P = 0.0146) muscles. Times until the resolution of sensory blockade (103 +/- 12 min versus 151 +/- 26 min; P = 0.0003), ambulation (103 +/- 12 min versus 151 +/- 26 min; P = 0.0003), and micturition (103 +/- 12 min versus 156 +/- 23 min; P < 0.0001) were all prolonged after procaine. In conclusion, at the doses tested, spinal 2-CP (30 mg) may be a better choice for short outpatient procedures because it provides anesthesia with similar efficacy as procaine (80 mg) but with more rapid fulfillment of discharge criteria.     

Clonidine added to bupivacaine enhances and prolongs analgesia after brachial plexus block via a local mechanism in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The addition of clonidine to local anaesthetics enhances pain relief after peripheral nerve block, but the site of action is unproven. METHODS: Seven healthy volunteers underwent three brachial block procedures using bupivacaine 0.25% 1 mg kg(-1) + epinephrine 1:200,000 (=local analgesic) in a randomized, double-blind cross-over fashion: (a) control treatment: local analgesic with 0.9% sodium chloride solution for the block and an intramuscular injection of saline; (b) intramuscular treatment: local analgesic with 0.9% NaCl for block and an intramuscular injection of clonidine 2 microg kg(-1) and (c) block treatment: local analgesic with clonidine 2 microg kg(-1) for block and an intramuscular injection of saline. RESULTS: The onset and duration of complete blockade (sensory/motor/temperature) was evaluated in the four nerve regions of the hand and forearm. Additionally, sedation score, blood pressure, heart rate and plasma clonidine concentrations were determined. The median duration of complete sensory blockade was 270 min (range 0-600) for block treatment compared to 0 min (range 0-480) for intramuscular treatment (P < 0.05) and 0 min (range 0-180) for control treatment (P < 0.05). Motor and temperature blockade exhibited similar results. Administration of clonidine was associated with sedation and a decrease in heart rate and blood pressure independent of the route of administration. Plasma clonidine concentrations were lower for block compared to the intramuscular treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The admixture of clonidine to bupivacaine plus epinephrine prolongs and enhances brachial plexus blockade. Lower clonidine plasma concentrations for block treatment strongly suggest a local effect.     

Comparison between 1.5% lidocaine with adrenaline and 1.5% plain mepivacaine in axillary brachial plexus block]

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the distribution of sensory blockade, the onset time and the duration of the axillary plexus block obtained after the administration of 40 mL of 1.5% lignocaine with adrenaline or 40 mL of plain 1.5% mepivacaine. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomised, comparative, double blind study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty five patients undergoing hand surgery were randomised into two groups: in group L, 73 patients were given 1.5% lignocaine with 1/200,000 adrenaline and in group M, 82 patients received 1.5% mepivacaine. The entire volume was injected on the first evoked motor activity obtained for a current less than 0.5 mA. Sensory and motor block of each of the four major nerves of the hand and forearm were assessed using light touch and motor strength respectively. The block was considered complete when all nerves were anaesthetised (median, radial, musculocutaneous and ulnar). RESULTS: The percentage of complete sensitive blockade was 22% in group L and 24% in group M. Complete motor blockade was respectively 27% in group L and 40% in group M. The median time required to obtain a complete sensory blockade was 18 min for both group. The median time required to obtain a complete motor blockade was 17 min in-group L and 16 min in-group M. The duration of the sensory blockade was not different for both groups (i.e., 255 +/- 76 min versus 231 +/- 70 min in group L and M respectively. The duration of the motor blockade was longer in group L compared to group M (199 +/- 64 min versus 231 +/- 74 min respectively, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Following axillary plexus block, 1.5% mepivacaine improves neither the extension nor the duration of sensory blockade achieved by 1.5% lignocaine with adrenaline.     

Sciatic Nerve Block via Posterior Labat Approach Is More Efficient Than Lateral Popliteal Approach Using a Double-injection Technique: A Prospective, Randomized Comparison

Background: For peripheral nerve blockade, the double-injection technique proved to be superior to a single injection in previous investigations. The current study was designed to compare onset time and efficacy of two different double-injection approaches for sciatic nerve block with 0.75% ropivacaine.

Methods: A total of 50 patients undergoing foot surgery were randomly assigned to receive sciatic nerve blockade by means of the classic (Labat) posterior approach (n = 25) or a lateral popliteal approach (n = 25). All blocks were performed with the use of a nerve stimulator, and both major components of the sciatic nerve (tibial and common peroneal nerves) received separately 10 ml ropivacaine, 0.75%. Success rate was defined as a complete sensory and motor block associated with pain-free surgery.

Results: A greater success rate was observed in the classic group (96%) as compared with the popliteal group (68%; P < 0.05). A general anesthetic became necessary in six patients (24%) with the lateral popliteal approach and none with the classic approach (P < 0.05). The onset of complete sensory and motor blockade was significantly faster in the classic group (12 +/- 6 min) as compared with the popliteal group (26 +/- 10 min; P < 0.05).     

The effect of age on sciatic nerve block duration

The physiologic changes that occur with advancing age and their effect on the duration of peripheral nerve blocks have yet to be defined. We prospectively studied the duration of sciatic nerve block using mepivacaine in younger and older patients. Eighty ASA physical status I-III patients, aged 18-35 (n = 40) or 55-80 (n = 40) yr, having outpatient knee arthroscopy with a femoral block and a standardized sciatic nerve block were enrolled; 37 in each group completed the study. All patients received a Labat sciatic nerve block using 20 mL of 1.0% mepivacaine with 0.1 mEq/mL sodium bicarbonate and 1:400,000 (2.5 microg/mL) epinephrine and a femoral nerve block. The duration of sensory block (sensation of pinprick, temperature, and vibration), motor block (plantar and dorsi flexion), and complete sensory and motor block in the sciatic nerve distribution of the operative extremity were measured. The time for complete return of both sensory and motor function was longer in the older group, 329 +/- 47 min compared with 306 +/- 46 min (mean +/- sd) in the younger group (P = 0.04). The difference was small under the conditions of this study and would not be perceived clinically. Age also increased the time to return of vibratory sensation (younger = 292 +/- 58 min, older = 257 +/- 50 min; P = 0.007). The other measurements did not differ between groups. We conclude that age may affect peripheral nerve blocks and that more investigation is needed to determine the pharmacologic, physiologic, and chronologic factors behind these findings.     

Perineural Administration of Dexmedetomidine in Combination with Bupivacaine Enhances Sensory and Motor Blockade in Sciatic Nerve Block without Inducing Neurotoxicity in Rat

Background: The current study was designed to test the hypothesis that high-dose dexmedetomidine added to local anesthetic would increase the duration of sensory and motor blockade in a rat model of sciatic nerve blockade without causing nerve damage.

Methods: Thirty-one adult Sprague-Dawley rats received bilateral sciatic nerve blocks with either 0.2 ml bupivacaine, 0.5%, and 0.5% bupivacaine plus 0.005% dexmedetomidine in the contralateral extremity, or 0.2 ml dexmedetomidine, 0.005%, and normal saline in the contralateral extremity. Sensory and motor function were assessed by a blinded investigator every 30 min until the return of normal sensory and motor function. Sciatic nerves were harvested at either 24 h or 14 days after injection and analyzed for perineural inflammation and nerve damage.

Results: High-dose dexmedetomidine added to bupivacaine significantly enhanced the duration of sensory and motor blockade. Dexmedetomidine alone did not cause significant motor or sensory block. All of the nerves analyzed had normal axons and myelin at 24 h and 14 days. Bupivacaine plus dexmedetomidine showed less perineural inflammation at 24 h than the bupivacaine group when compared with the saline control.     

Hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison to hyperbaric bupivacaine.

We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of spinal anesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine compared with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for elective cesarean delivery. Sixty healthy, full-term parturients were randomly assigned to receive either 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine or 18 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine intrathecally. There were no significant differences in demographic or surgical variables or neonatal outcomes between groups. Onset time of sensory block to T10 or to peak level was later in the Ropivacaine group (P < 0.05). The median (range) peak level of analgesia was T3 (T1-5) in the Bupivacaine group and T3 (T1-4) in the Ropivacaine group. Time for sensory block to recede to T10 did not differ between groups. Duration of sensory block was shorter in the Ropivacaine group (188.5 +/- 28.2 min vs 162.5 +/- 20.2 min; P < 0.05). Complete motor block of the lower extremities was obtained in all patients. Ropivacaine also produced a shorter duration of motor blockade than bupivacaine (113.7 +/- 18.6 min vs 158.7 +/- 31.2 min; P < 0.000). The intraoperative quality of anesthesia was excellent and similar in both groups. Side effects did not differ between groups. Eighteen milligrams of 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine provided effective spinal anesthesia with shorter duration of sensory and motor block, compared with 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine when administered for cesarean delivery Implications: Eighteen milligrams of 0.5% hyperbaric ropivacaine provided effective spinal anesthesia with shorter duration of sensory and motor block, compared with 12mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine when administered for cesarean delivery.     

Ultrasound guidance for infraclavicular brachial plexus anaesthesia in children

Ultrasonography may offer significant advantages in regional anaesthesia of the upper and lower limbs. It is not known if the same advantages demonstrated in adults also apply to children. We therefore performed a prospective, randomised study comparing ultrasound visualisation to conventional nerve stimulation for infraclavicular brachial plexus anasesthesia in children. Forty children scheduled for arm and forearm surgery underwent infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks with ropivacaine 0.5 ml.kg(-1) guided by either nerve stimulation or ultrasound visualisation. Evaluated parameters included sensory block quality, sensory block distribution and motor block. All surgical procedures were performed under brachial plexus anaesthesia alone. Direct ultrasound visualisation was successful in all cases and was associated with significant improvements when compared with the use of nerve stimulation: lower visual analogue scores during puncture (p = 0.03), shorter mean (median) sensory onset times (9 (5-15) min vs. 15 (5-25) min, p < 0.001), longer sensory block durations (384 (280-480) min vs. 310 (210-420) min, p < 0.001), and better sensory and motor block scores 10 min after block insertion. Ultrasound visualisation offers faster sensory and motor responses and a longer duration of sensory blockade than nerve stimulation in children undergoing infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks. In addition, the pain associated with nerve stimulation due to muscle contractions at the time of insertion is eliminated.     

Plantar flexion seems more reliable than dorsiflexion with Labat's sciatic nerve block: a prospective, randomized comparison

Labat's classic approach to the sciatic nerve has not been able to show which motor response of the foot provides a more frequent rate of complete sensory and motor block. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared plantar flexion with dorsiflexion with regard to onset time and efficacy of sciatic nerve block using the classic posterior approach. A total of 80 patients undergoing hallux valgus repair were randomly allocated to receive sciatic nerve block after evoked plantar flexion (n=40) or dorsiflexion (n=40). Twenty milliliters of 0.75% ropivacaine was injected after the motor response was elicited at <0.5 mA. Success rate was defined as complete sensory and motor block in all sciatic nerve distributions associated with a pain-free surgery. Time required for onset of sensory and motor block of the foot was recorded. Success was more frequent after elicited plantar flexion (87.5%) than dorsiflexion (55%; P <0.05). Onset of complete sensory and motor block of the foot was faster after elicited plantar flexion (10 +/- 10 min and 13 +/- 10 min, respectively) compared with dorsiflexion (20 +/- 11 min and 24 +/- 12 min; P <0.05). We conclude that plantar flexion of the foot predicts a shorter onset time and a more frequent success rate than dorsiflexion with Labat's classic posterior sciatic nerve block.     

A new anterior approach to the sciatic nerve block

BACKGROUND: Although several anterior approaches to sciatic nerve block have been described, they are used infrequently. The authors describe a new anterior approach that allows access to the sciatic nerve with the patient in the supine position. METHOD: Sciatic nerve blocks were performed in 22 patients. A line was drawn between the inferior border of the anterosuperior iliac spine and the superior angle of the pubic symphysis tubercle. Next, a perpendicular line bisecting the initial line was drawn and extended 8 cm caudad. The needle was inserted perpendicularly to the skin, and the sciatic nerve was identified at a depth of 10.5 cm (9.5-13.5 cm; median and range) using a nerve stimulator and a 15-cm b-beveled insulated needle. After appropriate localization, either 30 ml mepivacaine, 1.5% (group 1 = knee arthroscopy; n = 16), or 15 ml mepivacaine, 1.5%, plus 15 ml ropivacaine, 0.75%, (group 2 = other procedures; n = 6) was injected. RESULTS: Appropriate landmarks were determined within 1.3 min (0.5-2.0 min). The sciatic nerve was identified in all patients within 2.5 min (1.2-5 min), starting from the beginning of the appropriate landmark determination to the stimulation of its common peroneal nerve component in 13 cases and its tibial nerve component in 9 cases. A complete sensory block in the distribution of both the common peroneal nerve component and the tibial nerve component was obtained within 15 min (5-30 min). A shorter onset was observed in patients who received mepivacaine alone compared with those who received a mixture of mepivacaine plus ropivacaine (10 min [5-25 min] vs. 20 min [10-30 min]; P < 0.05). Recovery time was 4.6 h (2.5-5.5 h) after mepivacaine administration. The addition of ropivacaine produced a block of a much longer duration 13.8 h (5.2-23.6 h); P < 0.05. No complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This approach represents an easy and reliable anterior technique for performing sciatic nerve blocks.     

Intrathecal Ropivacaine and Clonidine for Ambulatory Knee Arthroscopy: A Dose-Response Study

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of a small dose of intrathecal ropivacaine with small doses of intrathecal clonidine for ambulatory surgery.

Methods: One hundred twenty patients, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and scheduled for knee arthroscopy, were studied. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 4 ml of one of the following double-blinded isobaric intrathecal solutions: 8 mg of ropivacaine (group 1; n =30); 8 mg ropivacaine plus 15 [mu]g clonidine (group 2; n =30); 8 mg ropivacaine plus 45 [mu]g clonidine (group 3; n =30); and 8 mg ropivacaine plus 75 [mu]g clonidine (group 4; n =30). The level and duration of sensory anesthesia were recorded, along with the intensity and duration of motor block. Patient and surgeon were interviewed to evaluate the quality of anesthesia.

Results: Intrathecal ropivacaine (8 mg alone) produced short sensory anesthesia and motor blockade (132 +/- 38 min and 110 +/- 35 min; mean +/- SD). However, the quality of anesthesia was significantly lower than in any other group (P < 0.05). Ropivacaine (8 mg) plus 75 [mu]g clonidine produced significantly longer sensory and motor anesthesia (195 +/- 40 min and 164 +/- 38 min;P < 0.05). However, this was associated with systemic effects, such as sedation and reduction of arterial blood pressure. Ropivacaine (8 mg) plus 15 [mu]g clonidine did not prolong sensory or motor blockade, afforded high quality anesthesia, and was not associated with detectable systemic effects.     

臂丛神经阻滞时神经刺激器诱发患者不同运动反应与桡神经阻滞效果的关系

目的 评价臂丛神经阻滞时神经刺激器诱发患者不同运动反应与桡神经阻滞效果的关系.方法 择期拟行手、腕或前臂手术患者120例,性别不限,ASA I或Ⅱ级,年龄18～60岁,随机分为2组(n=60),三点腋路臂丛神经阻滞在周围神经刺激器引导下,采用1%利多卡因与0.33%罗哌卡因混合液注射于肌皮神经、正中神经,分别为5、10 ml,I组和Ⅱ组分别诱发前臂外展或腕及手指外展时,采用上述混合液20 ml注射于桡神经周围,于注射完毕后5、10、15、20、25和30 min时采用针刺法评价肌皮神经、正中神经的感觉阻滞情况,桡神经近端和远端的感觉及运动阻滞情况.记录神经阻滞操作时间,记录桡神经定位次数,评价桡神经定位的难易程度.结果 与I组相比,Ⅱ组感觉完全阻滞成功率高,桡神经远端感觉及运动阻滞成功率高,神经阻滞操作时间长,桡神经定位困难程度高(P<0.05或0.01).结论 臂丛神经阻滞时,当神经刺激器诱发患者腕及手指外展较诱发前臂外展应用1%利多卡因与0.33%罗哌卡因混合液20 ml阻滞桡神经的效果更完善.