Ultrasound-guided selective nerve blocks for trigger finger surgeries to maintain flexion/extension of fingers - Case series / Bloqueios seletivos guiados por ultrassom para cirurgias de dedo em gatilho para manutenção da flexão/extensão dos dedos - Série de casos

Abstract Background: A patient's ability to move his/her fingers during hand surgery may be helpful to surgeons because it allows the effectiveness of the intervention evaluation and prediction of hand function in the postoperative period. The purpose of this case series is to demonstrate the efficacy of an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block technique to maintain the hand flexor and extensor muscles motor function and discuss the benefits of the technique for trigger finger surgery. Case report: Ten patients scheduled to undergo trigger finger surgery were selected. The goal was to maintain flexion and extension of the fingers during the procedure. Thus, ultrasound-guided ulnar, radial, and medial nerve block was performed in the distal third of the forearm, at 5-7 cm proximal to the wrist. The block was performed with 5 mL of 0.375% bupivacaine on each nerve. All procedures were uneventfully performed maintaining the flexion and extension of the fingers. In two cases, it was observed that the motricity maintenance and the patients' ability to move their fingers when requested allowed the success of the surgical procedure after the third intraoperative evaluation. Conclusion: This case series shows that it is possible to maintain the motor function of the hand flexor and extensor muscles to perform finger trigger surgeries using specific ultrasound-guided distal blocks.

Resumo Justificativa: A capacidade de um paciente mover os dedos durante a cirurgia da mão pode ser útil para o cirurgião porque permite a avaliação da eficácia da intervenção e a predição da função da mão no pós-operatório. O objetivo desta série de casos é demonstrar a eficácia de uma técnica de bloqueio de nervo periférico guiado por ultrassom na manutenção da função motora dos músculos flexores e extensores da mão e discutir os benefícios da técnica para cirurgias de liberação de dedo em gatilho. Relato de caso: Foram selecionados 10 pacientes em programação para cirurgia de liberação de dedo em gatilho. O objetivo era manter a flexão e a extensão dos dedos durante o procedimento. Dessa forma, o bloqueio dos nervos ulnar, radial e mediano, guiados por ultrassom, foi feito no terço distal do antebraço, 5 a 7 cm proximais ao punho. O bloqueio foi feito com 5 mL de bupivacaína a 0,375% em cada nervo. Todos os procedimentos foram feitos sem complicações e com manutenção da flexão e extensão dos dedos. Em dois casos, observou-se que a manutenção da motricidade e a capacidade dos pacientes de mover os dedos quando solicitado permitiu o sucesso do procedimento cirúrgico após a terceira avaliação intraoperatória. Conclusão: Esta série de casos mostra que é possível manter a função motora dos músculos flexores e extensores da mão em cirurgias de liberação de dedo em gatilho por meio de bloqueios distais específicos guiados por ultrassom.

[Ultrasound-guided selective nerve blocks for trigger finger surgeries to maintain flexion/extension of fingers - Case series]. / Bloqueios seletivos guiados por ultrassom para cirurgias de dedo em gatilho para manutenção da flexão/extensão dos dedos ­ Série de casos.

BACKGROUND: A patient's ability to move his/her fingers during hand surgery may be helpful to surgeons because it allows the effectiveness of the intervention evaluation and prediction of hand function in the postoperative period. The purpose of this case series is to demonstrate the efficacy of an ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block technique to maintain the hand flexor and extensor muscles motor function and discuss the benefits of the technique for trigger finger surgery. CASE REPORT: Ten patients scheduled to undergo trigger finger surgery were selected. The goal was to maintain flexion and extension of the fingers during the procedure. Thus, ultrasound-guided ulnar, radial, and medial nerve block was performed in the distal third of the forearm, at 5-7cm proximal to the wrist. The block was performed with 5mL of 0.375% bupivacaine on each nerve. All procedures were uneventfully performed maintaining the flexion and extension of the fingers. In two cases, it was observed that the motricity maintenance and the patients' ability to move their fingers when requested allowed the success of the surgical procedure after the third intraoperative evaluation. CONCLUSION: This case series shows that it is possible to maintain the motor function of the hand flexor and extensor muscles to perform finger trigger surgeries using specific ultrasound-guided distal blocks.

Randomized prospective study of three different techniques for ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block / Estudo prospectivo randomizado de três diferentes técnicas para o bloqueio do plexo braquial via axilar guiado por ultrassom

Abstract Introduction Randomized prospective study comparing two perivascular techniques with the perineural technique for ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block (US-ABPB). The primary objective was to verify if these perivascular techniques are noninferior to the perineural technique. Method 240 patients were randomized to receive the techniques: below the artery (BA), around the artery (AA) or perineural (PN). The anesthetic volume used was 40 mL of 0.375% bupivacaine. All patients received a musculocutaneous nerve blockade with 10 mL. In BA technique, 30 mL were injected below the axillary artery. In AA technique, 7.5 mL were injected at 4 points around the artery. In PN technique, the median, ulnar, and radial nerves were anesthetized with 10 mL per nerve. Results Confidence interval analysis showed that the perivascular techniques studied were not inferior to the perineural technique. The time to perform the blockade was shorter for the BA technique (300.4 ± 78.4 s, 396.5 ± 117.1 s, 487.6 ± 172.6 s, respectively). The PN technique showed a lower latency time (PN - 655.3 ± 348.9 s; BA - 1044 ± 389.5 s; AA - 932.9 ± 314.5 s), and less total time for the procedure (PN - 1132 ± 395.8 s; BA - 1346.2 ± 413.4 s; AA - 1329.5 ± 344.4 s). BA technique had a higher incidence of vascular puncture (BA - 22.5%; AA - 16.3%; PN - 5%). Conclusion The perivascular techniques are viable alternatives to perineural technique for US-ABPB. There is a higher incidence of vascular puncture associated with the BA technique.

Resumo Introdução Estudo prospectivo randomizado, compara duas técnicas perivasculares com a técnica perineural para o bloqueio do plexo braquial via axilar guiado por ultrassom (BPVA-USG). Objetivo primário foi verificar se essas técnicas perivasculares são não inferiores à técnica perineural. Método Foram randomizados 240 pacientes para receber as técnicas: abaixo da artéria (TA), ao redor da artéria (TR) ou perineural (PN). O volume de anestésico usado foi 40 ml de bupivacaína 0,375%. Em todos os pacientes, fez-se o bloqueio do nervo musculocutâneo com 10 ml. Na técnica TA, injetaram-se 30 ml abaixo da artéria axilar. Na técnica TR, injetaram-se 7,5 ml em quatro pontos ao redor da artéria. Na técnica PN, os nervos mediano, ulnar e radial foram anestesiados com 10 ml por nervo. Resultados Análise dos intervalos de confiança mostrou que as técnicas perivasculares estudadas não são inferiores à técnica perineural. A técnica TA apresentou menor tempo para o bloqueio (300,4 ± 78,4 seg; 396,5 ± 117,1 seg; 487,6 ± 172,6 seg; respectivamente). A técnica PN apresentou menor tempo de latência (PN - 655,3 ± 348,9 seg; TA - 1044 ± 389,5 seg; TR - 932,9 ± 314,5 seg) e menor tempo total de procedimento (PN - 1132 ± 395,8 seg; TA -1346,2 ± 413,4 seg; TR 1329,5 ± 344,4 seg). A técnica TA apresentou maior incidência de punção vascular (TA - 22,5%, TR - 16,3%; PN - 5%). Conclusão As técnicas perivasculares são opções viáveis à técnica perineural para o BPVA-USG. Ressalta-se maior incidência de punção vascular associada à técnica TA.

[Randomized prospective study of three different techniques for ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block]. / Estudo prospectivo randomizado de três diferentes técnicas para o bloqueio do plexo braquial via axilar guiado por ultrassom.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized prospective study comparing two perivascular techniques with the perineural technique for ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block (US-ABPB). The primary objective was to verify if these perivascular techniques are noninferior to the perineural technique. METHOD: 240 patients were randomized to receive the techniques: below the artery (BA), around the artery (AA) or perineural (PN). The anesthetic volume used was 40mL of 0.375% bupivacaine. All patients received a musculocutaneous nerve blockade with 10mL. In BA technique, 30mL were injected below the axillary artery. In AA technique, 7.5mL were injected at 4 points around the artery. In PN technique, the median, ulnar, and radial nerves were anesthetized with 10mL per nerve. RESULTS: Confidence interval analysis showed that the perivascular techniques studied were not inferior to the perineural technique. The time to perform the blockade was shorter for the BA technique (300.4±78.4sec, 396.5±117.1sec, 487.6±172.6sec, respectively). The PN technique showed a lower latency time (PN - 655.3±348.9sec; BA -1044±389.5sec; AA-932.9±314.5sec), and less total time for the procedure (PN-1132±395.8sec; BA -1346.2±413.4sec; AA 1329.5±344.4sec). BA technique had a higher incidence of vascular puncture (BA - 22.5%; AA - 16.3%; PN - 5%). CONCLUSION: The perivascular techniques are viable alternatives to perineural technique for US-ABPB. There is a higher incidence of vascular puncture associated with the BA technique.