Peripheral nerve blocks for closed reduction of distal radius fractures-A protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Current methods of anaesthesia used for closed reduction of distal radial fractures may be insufficient for pain relief and muscle relaxation, potentially compromising reduction quality and patient satisfaction. Peripheral nerve blocks have already been implemented for surgery of wrist fractures and may provide optimal conditions for closed reduction due to complete motor and sensory blockade of the involved nerves. However, existing literature on peripheral nerve blocks for closed reduction is sparse, and no updated systematic review or meta-analysis exists. AIMS: This protocol is developed according to the PRISMA-P statement. The systematic review and meta-analysis aim to consolidate the literature regarding the effect and harm of peripheral nerve blocks compared with other anaesthesia modalities for closed reduction of distal radius fractures in adults. METHODS: The two primary outcomes are the proportion of participants needing surgery after closed reduction and pain during closed reduction. We will only include randomised clinical trials. Two review authors will each independently screen literature, extract data, and assess risk of bias with Risk of Bias 2 Tool. Meta-analysis will be carried out with Rstudio. We will also perform a Trial Sequential Analysis. The certainty of evidence will be judged using GRADE guidelines. DISCUSSION: We will use up-to-date methodology when conducting the systematic review outlined in this protocol. The results may guide clinicians in their decision-making regarding the use of anaesthesia for closed reduction of distal radius fractures in adults.

Single injection combined suprascapular and axillary nerve block: A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: A shoulder block without lung affection is desirable. In this study, we compared a low versus a high volume of a modified supraclavicular brachial plexus block. We hypothesised that a low volume of local anaesthetic would provide non-inferior block success rate with better preserved lung function. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were randomised to receive ultrasound guided 5 or 20 ml ropivacaine 0.5% at the departure of the suprascapular nerve from the brachial plexus. Primary outcome was successful shoulder block-defined as cutaneous sensory affection of the axillary nerve and motor affection of the suprascapular nerve (>50% reduction in external rotation force measured with dynamometry). We used a non-inferiority margin of 20%. Secondary outcome was change in lung function measured with spirometry. RESULTS: Thirteen of 16 (81.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 57.0% to 93.4%) in the 5 ml group and 15 of 16 (93.8%; 95% CI 71.7% to 98.9%) in the 20 ml group had successful shoulder block (p = .6). The ratio of the event rates of the 20 ml (standard) and 5 ml (intervention) groups was (15/16)/(13/16) = 0.937/0.813 = 1.15 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.51). All mean reductions in lung function parameters were non-significantly lower in the 5 ml group compared with the 20 ml group. CONCLUSION: For our primary outcome, the 95% CI of the difference of event ratio included the non-inferiority margin. We are therefore unable to conclude that 5 ml LA is non-inferior to 20 ml LA with respect to block success rate.

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks for preoperative pain management in hip fractures: a systematic review.

Systematic reviews associate peripheral nerve blocks based on anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation with reduced pain and need for systemic analgesia in hip fracture patients. We aimed to investigate the effect of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks compared to conventional analgesia for preoperative pain management in hip fractures. Five databases were searched until June 2021 to identify randomised controlled trials. Two independent authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data was pooled for meta-analysis and quality of evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We included 12 trials (976 participants) comparing ultrasound-guided nerve blocks to conventional systemic analgesia. In favour of ultrasound, pain measured closest to two hours after block placement decreased with a mean difference of -2.26 (VAS 0 to 10); (p < 0.001) 95% CI [-2.97 to -1.55]. In favour of ultrasound, preoperative analgesic usage of iv. morphine equivalents in milligram decreased with a mean difference of -5.34 (p=0.003) 95% CI [-8.11 to -2.58]. Time from admission until surgery ranged from six hours to more than three days. Further, ultrasound-guided nerve blocks may be associated with a lower frequency of delirium: risk ratio 0.6 (p = 0.03) 95% CI [0.38 to 0.94], fewer serious adverse events: risk ratio 0.33 (p = 0.006) 95% CI [0.15 to 0.73] and higher patient satisfaction: mean difference 25.9 (VAS 0 to 100) (p < 0.001) 95% CI [19.74 to 32.07]. However, the quality of evidence was judged low or very low. In conclusion, despite low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia.

Low volume proximal suprascapular nerve block after arthroscopic shoulder surgery - A randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A proximal suprascapular nerve block has been suggested as an alternative to an interscalene brachial plexus block after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to compare the analgesic and opioid-sparing effect of a low volume proximal suprascapular nerve block with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe pain after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. METHODS: Patients with a VAS score equal to or above 50 during the first postoperative hour after planned arthroscopic shoulder surgery were included in the study. They were randomised to an ultrasound-guided proximal suprascapular nerve block with either 5 ml ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml or 5 ml isotonic NaCl. Primary outcome was change in VAS score at rest from baseline to 30 min after the block procedure (T30). Secondary outcomes included total morphine consumption from 0-6 h after block procedure. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in mean VAS reductions at T30 between the two groups favouring the ropivacaine group (-50.2 vs -26.8, p < .001). Total intravenous morphine consumption from 0-6 h after block procedure was significantly lower in the ropivacaine group compared to the placebo group (8.5 mg vs 18.5 mg, p < .01). CONCLUSION: In this study, a proximal suprascapular nerve block with only 5 ml ropivacaine resulted in a substantial pain reduction and opioid-sparing effect in patients with VAS of 50 or more after arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Programmed, intermittent boluses versus continuous infusion to the sciatic nerve - a non-inferiority randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Trials comparing programmed, intermittent boluses (PIB) and continuous infusion in catheter-based nerve blocks found no analgesic differences. However, as these trials used equal doses of local anesthetic (LA), the time of action of each bolus was not accounted for. Therefore, the dose-sparing benefits of PIB may have been overlooked. We compared the analgesic effect of boluses administered in intervals resembling the time of action of each bolus with continuous infusion. We hypothesized that PIB provided non-inferior analgesia despite consuming less LA. METHODS: Eighty-one patients undergoing fore- and midfoot surgery receiving a catheter-based sciatic nerve block were randomized to ropivacaine 0.2% as PIB of 10 ml every 8th hour or as continuous infusion, 6 ml h-1 . All participants could also receive boluses of 10 ml every 4th hour as needed. A non-inferiority randomized controlled design was used. Primary outcome was pain (VAS, 0-100 mm) for 72 h using area under curve (AUC) calculation. We assumed a linear relationship between mean VAS and AUC-VAS and used a non-inferiority margin of VAS = 20 mm, corresponding to AUC-VAS = 1440 mm h. RESULTS: Mean difference in AUC-VAS was -416 mm h (95% CI -1076 to 244; p = .217) between continuous infusion (mean AUC-VAS 1206 mm h) and PIB (mean AUC-VAS 1621 mm h), establishing non-inferiority. Mean total LA consumption was significantly larger for continuous infusion compared to PIB ((468 ml (95% CI 458 to 478) vs. 136 ml (95% CI 123 to 148); p < 0.0001)). CONCLUSIONS: PIB provided non-inferior analgesia compared to continuous infusion for 72 postoperative hours despite using significantly less LA.

Intraindividual variation of the transversus abdominis plane block: an exploratory study in healthy volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: The transversus abdominis plane block is widely used in postoperative pain management after abdominal surgery. However, large interindividual variation in the cutaneous distribution area of the block has been demonstrated. The purpose of the present study was to explore the reproducibility of the block by determining the intraindividual variation when repeating the block on two separate days. METHODS: Ultrasound-guided posterior transversus abdominis plane blocks were performed in 16 healthy volunteers and repeated after at least 2 days. Cutaneous sensory block areas and distributions, thresholds for mechanical stimulation, abdominal muscle thicknesses at rest and during maximal contraction, waist circumferences and block duration times were measured on both days. Outcome measurements from the 2 days were compared using a one-sample t-test and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated for each parameter. Agreement was evaluated visually using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: None of the mean values of the outcome measurements differed significantly between the 2 days. Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.75 (moderate-to-good reliability) for lateral abdominal muscle thickness during maximal contraction, but ranges from -0.07 to 0.67 were found for all other outcome measurements (poor-to-moderate reliability). CONCLUSION: We found a moderate-to-good reproducibility for lateral abdominal muscle thickness during maximal voluntary contraction, but a moderate-to-poor reproducibility for all other block characteristics. However, the cutaneous distribution of the block was still located primarily inferior to a horizontal line through the umbilicus and lateral relative to a vertical line through the anterior superior iliac spine.

A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of selective axillary nerve block after arthroscopic subacromial decompression.

BACKGROUND: The sensory innervation of the shoulder is complex and there are variations in the branching patterns of the sensory fibres. Articular branches from the axillary nerve to the subacromial bursa are described in more than 50% of investigated shoulders but the isolated contribution of sensory input from the axillary nerve has never been investigated clinically. We hypothesized that a selective block of the axillary nerve would reduce morphine consumption and pain after arthroscopic subacromial decompression. METHODS: We included 60 patients in a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomized to a preoperative selective ultrasound-guided axillary nerve block with 20 mL ropivacaine (7.5 mg/mL) or 20 mL saline. Primary outcome was intravenous morphine consumption 0-4 h postoperatively. Secondary outcome was postoperative pain evaluated by a visual analogue scale (VAS) score (0-100). RESULTS: We analysed data from 50 patients and found no significant difference in 0-4 h postoperative morphine consumption between the two groups (ropivacaine 14 mg, placebo 18 mg (P = 0.12)). There was a reduction in postoperative pain: VAS 0-4 h (area under the curve) (ropivacaine 135, placebo 182 (P = 0.03)), VAS after 8 h (ropivacaine 9, placebo 20 (P = 0.01)) and VAS after 24 h (ropivacaine 7, placebo 18 (P = 0.04)). Eight out of 19 patients with a successful selective axillary nerve block needed an interscalene brachial plexus escape block. CONCLUSIONS: Selective block of the axillary nerve has some pain relieving effect, but in this setting the effect was unpredictable, variable and far from sufficient in a large proportion of the patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01463865). Registered: November 1, 2011.

Volume of ropivacaine 0.2% and sciatic nerve block duration: A randomized, blinded trial in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Sciatic nerve blocks are used for many orthopaedic procedures on the knee, lower leg, foot and ankle. However, as nerve block durations vary considerably, the timing of supplemental analgesia is challenging. Therefore, knowledge on the effect of local anaesthetic (LA) dose on block duration is important to outweigh the benefits of increasing LA dose against the risk of LA systemic toxicity. In this randomized, double-blind trial, we aimed to explore the relationship between the volume of ropivacaine 0.2% and sciatic nerve block duration. We hypothesized that increasing LA volume would prolong block duration. METHODS: We randomized 60 healthy volunteers to receive one of five volumes of ropivacaine 0.2%: 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 mL. We used an ultrasound-guided, catheter-based technique targeting the sciatic nerve in the infragluteal region. The primary outcome was sensory block duration defined as the time of insensitivity to a cold stimulus. Intergroup differences were tested using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Mean (SD) sensory block durations for the tibial nerve (TN) with increasing volume were: 9.3 hours (1.7), 10.4 hours (1.6), 9.7 hours (2.9), 10.7 hours (2.8) and 9.9 hours (2.6). Mean (SD) sensory block durations for the common peroneal nerve (CPN) were: 10.6 hours (2.7), 11.9 hours (1.5), 11.0 hours (3.3), 13.2 hours (3.7), and 13.5 hours (6.1). There were no intergroup differences (P = .67 [TN]; P = .25 [CPN]). CONCLUSION: We found no effect of increasing the volume of ropivacaine 0.2% from 5 to 30 mL on sensory sciatic nerve block duration.

Adductor canal block with a suture-method catheter - A parallel or perpendicular approach?

BACKGROUND: We performed a randomised blinded pilot study in 16 healthy volunteers to assess whether placing a suture-method catheter in the adductor canal is feasible with two different insertion techniques. METHODS: Each volunteer had a suture-method catheter placed approximately halfway between the superior anterior iliac spine and base of the patella in both legs. Catheters were placed using a parallel technique in one leg and a perpendicular technique in the other leg, according to randomisation. 15 mL lidocaine 1% was injected in each catheter. Successful placement was defined as loss of cold sensation in the saphenous area 30 min after injection. Volunteers were sent home and returned the following day and another dose of lidocaine (15 mL, 1%) was injected through the catheters. Catheter displacement distance was assessed by ultrasound and cold sensation was assessed. In case of preserved cold sensation, we attempted to reposition the catheter with a subsequent injection of lidocaine and reassessment of cold sensation. RESULTS: All primary placements were successful using the perpendicular approach (100%; 95% CI 81%-100%) whereas one placement failed using the parallel approach (94%; 95% CI 72%-99%). Three catheters placed using the perpendicular approach were displaced on day 2, compared to one catheter placed with the parallel approach. Displacement distance was highly variable. All catheters, except one, could be repositioned. Three volunteers reported transient sensory deficits lasting approximately 6-8 weeks. CONCLUSION: The suture-method catheter can be placed in the adductor canal with high success rates for initial placement with both techniques.

Ultrasound guided repositioning of a new suture-method catheter for adductor canal block - a randomized pilot study in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: We performed a randomized, blinded pilot study in 12 volunteers to assess the feasibility to reposition an intentionally displaced suture-method catheter for two different insertion techniques for adductor canal block. METHODS: Each volunteer had an ultrasound-guided suture-method catheter placed in the adductor canal (AC) in both legs. The catheters were placed using a perpendicular technique in one leg and a parallel technique in the other leg, according to randomization. 15 mL lidocaine 1% (LA) was injected in each catheter. Successful primary placement was defined as combined LA spread within the AC and loss of cold sensation 15 min after injection. All catheters were intentionally displaced, and subsequently repositioned using ultrasound. Another dose of lidocaine (15 mL 1%) was injected through the catheters and assessed for successful repositioning. RESULTS: Successful primary placement was achieved in 83% (95% CI 55-95%) of catheters placed perpendicular to the AC, and in 75% (95% CI 47-91%) of catheters placed parallel to the AC. Of those with successful primary placement, 100% (95% CI 72-100%) of catheters placed perpendicular to the AC, and 67% (95% CI 35-88%)) placed parallel to the AC could be repositioned. CONCLUSIONS: Placement and secondary repositioning after displacement of a suture-method catheter within the adductor canal is achievable. A perpendicular technique seems more reliable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03315481 clinicaltrials.gov . The study was submitted on March 1, 2017. Due to clerical error, the study was posted on October 20, 2017.