Single- versus double-injection costoclavicular block: a randomized comparison.

BACKGROUND: The costoclavicular approach targets the brachial plexus in the proximal infraclavicular fossa, where the lateral, medial, and posterior cords are tightly bundled together. This randomized trial compared single- and double-injection ultrasound-guided costoclavicular blocks. We selected onset time as the primary outcome and hypothesized that, compared with its single-injection counterpart, the double-injection technique would result in a swifter onset. METHODS: Ninety patients undergoing upper limb surgery (at or below the elbow joint) were randomly allocated to receive a single- (n=45) or double-injection (n=45) ultrasound-guided costoclavicular block. The local anesthetic agent (35 mL of lidocaine 1%-bupivacaine 0.25%with epinephrine 5 µg/mL and 2 mg of preservative-free dexamethasone) was identical in all subjects. In the single-injection group, the entire volume of local anesthetic was injected between the three cords of the brachial plexus. In the double-injection group, the first half of the volume was administered in this location; the second half was deposited between the medial cord and the subclavian artery. After the performance of the block, a blinded observer recorded the onset time (defined as the time required to achieve a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 out of 16 points), success rate (surgical anesthesia) and block-related pain scores. Performance time and the number of needle passes were also recorded during the performance of the block. The total anesthesia-related time was defined as the sum of the performance and onset times. RESULTS: Compared with its single-injection counterpart, the double-injection technique displayed shorter onset time (16.6 (6.4) vs 23.4 (6.9) min; p<0.001; 95% CI for difference 3.9 to 9.7) and total anesthesia-related time (22.5 (6.7) vs 28.9 (7.6) min; p<0.001). No intergroup differences were found in terms of success and technical execution (ie, performance time/procedural pain). The double-injection group required more needle passes than the single-injection group (2 (1-4) vs 1 (1-3); p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared with its single-injection counterpart, double-injection costoclavicular block results in shorter onset and total anesthesia-related times. Further investigation is required to determine if a triple-injection technique (with targeted local anesthetic injection around each cord of the brachial plexus) could further decrease the onset time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03595514.

Treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: a review of the evidence.

PURPOSE: This narrative review summarizes the evidence derived from randomized controlled trials pertaining to the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). SOURCE: Using the MEDLINE (January 1950 to April 2009) and EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2009) databases, the following medical subject headings (MeSH) were searched: "Complex Regional Pain Syndrome", "Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy", and "causalgia" as well as the key words "algodystrophy", "Sudeck's atrophy", "shoulder hand syndrome", "neurodystrophy", "neuroalgodystrophy", "reflex neuromuscular dystrophy", and "posttraumatic dystrophy". Results were limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted on human subjects, written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, and pertinent to treatment. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The search criteria yielded 41 RCTs with a mean of 31.7 subjects per study. Blinded assessment and sample size justification were provided in 70.7% and 19.5% of RCTs, respectively. Only biphosphonates appear to offer clear benefits for patients with CRPS. Improvement has been reported with dimethyl sulfoxide, steroids, epidural clonidine, intrathecal baclofen, spinal cord stimulation, and motor imagery programs, but further trials are required. The available evidence does not support the use of calcitonin, vasodilators, or sympatholytic and neuromodulative intravenous regional blockade. Clear benefits have not been reported with stellate/lumbar sympathetic blocks, mannitol, gabapentin, and physical/occupational therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Published RCTs can only provide limited evidence to formulate recommendations for treatment of CRPS. In this review, no study was excluded based on factors such as sample size justification, statistical power, blinding, definition of intervention allocation, or clinical outcomes. Thus, evidence derived from "weaker" trials may be overemphasized. Further well-designed RCTs are warranted.

A review of approaches and techniques for lower extremity nerve blocks.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this narrative review is to summarize the evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding approaches and techniques for lower extremity nerve blocks. SOURCE: Using the MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2007) and EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2007) databases, medical subject heading (MeSH) terms "lumbosacral plexus", "femoral nerve", "obturator nerve", "saphenous nerve", "sciatic nerve", "peroneal nerve" and "tibial nerve" were searched and combined with the MESH term "nerve block" using the operator "and". Keywords "lumbar plexus", "psoas compartment", "psoas sheath", "sacral plexus", "fascia iliaca", "three-in-one", "3-in-1", "lateral femoral cutaneous", "posterior femoral cutaneous", "ankle" and "ankle block" were also queried and combined with the MESH term "nerve block". The search was limited to RCTs involving human subjects and published in the English language. Forty-six RCTs were identified. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared to its anterior counterpart (3-in-1 block), the posterior approach to the lumbar plexus is more reliable when anesthesia of the obturator nerve is required. The fascia iliaca compartment block may also represent a better alternative than the 3-in-1 block because of improved efficacy and efficiency (quicker performance time, lower cost). For blockade of the sciatic nerve, the classic transgluteal approach constitutes a reliable method. Due to a potentially shorter time for sciatic nerve electrolocation and catheter placement than for the transgluteal approach, the subgluteal approach should also be considered. Compared to electrolocation of the peroneal nerve, electrostimulation of the tibial nerve may offer a higher success rate especially with the transgluteal and lateral popliteal approaches. Furthermore, when performing sciatic and femoral blocks with low volumes of local anesthetics, a multiple-injection technique should be used. CONCLUSIONS: Published reports of RCTs provide evidence to formulate limited recommendations regarding optimal approaches and techniques for lower limb anesthesia. Further well-designed and meticulously executed RCTs are warranted, particularly in light of new techniques involving ultrasonographic guidance.

Brachial plexus blocks: a review of approaches and techniques.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this narrative review is to summarize the evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding established approaches and techniques for brachial plexus anesthesia. SOURCE: Using the MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2006) and EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2006) databases, key words "brachial plexus", "nerve blocks", "interscalene", "cervical paravertebral", "suprascapular", "supraclavicular", "infraclavicular", "axillary", "brachial canal" and "humeral canal" were searched for full text articles pertaining to the evaluation of recognized approaches and techniques for brachial plexus anesthesia. The search was limited to RCTs involving human subjects and published in the English language. Seventy-six RCTs were identified. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Many of the published studies were underpowered and contained various methodological limitations. We found that, for shoulder and proximal humeral surgery, interscalene and cervical paravertebral approaches to the brachial plexus appear to provide equally effective surgical anesthesia. Intersternocleidomastoid supraclavicular blocks are not associated with improved postoperative analgesia despite eliciting more complete anesthesia of the brachial plexus. For surgery at or below the elbow, an infraclavicular block may result in decreased performance time and block-related pain while providing similar efficacy compared to (multiple-stimulation) axillary and brachial canal approaches. With respect to technique, it is unclear if nerve stimulation provides a more effective interscalene block than elicitation of paresthesiae. For supraclavicular blocks, nerve stimulation with a minimal threshold of 0.9 mA is recommended, whereas a double-stimulation technique is optimal for infraclavicular blocks. For the axillary approach, a triple-stimulation technique, involving injections of the musculocutaneous, median and radial nerves, is the most effective option. CONCLUSIONS: Published reports of RCTs provide evidence to formulate limited recommendations regarding optimal approaches and techniques for brachial plexus anesthesia. Further well-designed and meticulously executed RCTs are warranted, particularly in light of new techniques involving ultrasound or combining neurostimulation and echoguidance.

Electrical stimulation of the epidural space using a catheter with a removable stylet.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electrical stimulation can be used to verify the location of epidural catheters. With the traditional technique, the latter must be primed with saline to allow for electrical conduction: any air lock will, thus, hinder the flow of current. Therefore, we set out to explore an alternative mode of stimulation by use of a catheter containing a removable stylet. This study examines the reliability of this new technique. METHODS: In 71 patients undergoing surgery, a thoracic epidural catheter was inserted preoperatively. Loss of resistance was used to identify the epidural space. The TheraCath was introduced 5 cm into the space and connected to a neurostimulator via a 2-headed alligator clip. The intensity, pulse width, and level of myotomal contractions were recorded upon stimulation of the epidural space. A bolus of lidocaine was then injected and the patient assessed for sensory block to ice. RESULTS: The failure rate in proper epidural catheter placement was 8.5%. Epidural stimulation yielded a mean threshold of 1.90 +/- 1.80 nanocoulombs. A total of 37 catheters produced a unilateral muscular response; however, block to ice was bilateral. When compared with the ice test, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of epidural stimulation with the TheraCath were 92%, 83%, 98%, and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the TheraCath, because of the removable stylet, provides effective electrostimulation of the epidural space. Its use was simple and devoid of complications. Nonetheless, further studies are required before implementing its routine use in clinical settings.