[Ultrasound guidance improves the success rate of axillary plexus block: a meta-analysis]

Patient satisfaction with intravenous regional anaesthesia or an axillary block for minor ambulatory hand surgery: A randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) and the axillary brachial plexus block are popular alternatives to general anaesthesia in ambulatory hand surgery. Although both have proven their effectiveness, patients' preferences have never been evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated patient satisfaction with both techniques and hypothesised that satisfaction after IVRA is noninferior compared with axillary brachial plexus block.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Ambulatory surgical day care centre, University Hospitals of Leuven, Belgium, from September 2016 to November 2017.

PATIENTS

One hundred and twenty adults undergoing minor ambulatory hand surgery were included in this study.

INTERVENTION

Patients received either IVRA with 300 mg lidocaine or an axillary block with 280 mg mepivacaine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the evaluation of patient satisfaction using the 'Evaluation du Vécu de l'Anésthesie Locoregional' (EVAN-LR) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included different procedural times, block quality, tourniquet discomfort, the incidence of block failure and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), the severity of postoperative pain and the need for postoperative analgesics during the first 24 h.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of IVRA was shown for the median [IQR] total score on the EVAN-LR questionnaire, IVRA-group: 92 [87 to 96] vs. axillary brachial plexus block-group: 91[87 to 97]; Hodges--Lehmann estimator (95% confidence interval (CI)] for the shift: -0.25 (-2.60 to 2.20). Induction of anaesthesia and time to discharge, requiring partial recovery of the motor block, were significantly longer in the axillary brachial plexus block group. The IVRA-group had a lower block quality, a higher incidence of tourniquet-discomfort and higher median intra-operative and postoperative pain scores on day 0; 0 [0 to 2] vs. 0 [0 to 0] and 0.8 [0 to 1.8] vs. 0 [0 to 0.25], respectively, but no increase in the need for supplementary analgesics or conversion rate to general anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

IVRA and axillary brachial plexus block result in comparably high patient satisfaction in ambulatory hand surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2016-002325-11.

Role of positioning posterior cord on coracoid approach brachial plexus block guided by nerve stimulator: Compared with guided by ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Coracoid approach is efficient and safe for brachial plexus block, and is guided by nerve stimulator or ultrasound in general. Many trials have proved that ultrasonic guidance was more efficacious than nerve stimulator guidance. We hypothesized that positioning posterior cord could enhance the anesthesia effect of coracoid approach brachial plexus block (CABPB) guided by nerve stimulator.

METHODS

Eighty patients were randomized into 2 groups to receive CABPB with positioning posterior cord guided by nerve stimulator (group A) or CABPB guided by ultrasound (group B). Success rate, procedure time, and onset time of sensory or motor block were recorded.

RESULTS

Success rate was similar in 2 groups (89.7% in group A vs 87.5% in group B, P > .05). Procedure time was longer in group A (8 minutes), as compared with group B (4 minutes; P < .05). The difference of onset time of sensory and motor block was not significant between the 2 groups. The onset time of sensory and motor block for musculocutaneous nerve was significantly shorter in group A, as compared with group B (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The 2 technologies are equivalent regarding success rate, safety, and onset time of sensory or motor block. Positioning posterior cord in CABPB guided by nerve stimulator is efficacious for upper extremity surgery.(URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/listbycreater.aspx ID: ChiCTR-INR-16009091 DATE: 25/8/2016).