A comparison of stimulation patterns in axillary block : part 2
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Radial plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation may have a predominant role in the success of an axillary block, producing more extensive anesthesia of the upper limb than median plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation. However, no comparison has been made with ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation. We compared the extent of both sensory and motor block after ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation or radial plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation.
METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive an axillary block using either radial plus musculocutaneous or ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation with 40 mL plain 1.5% mepivacaine. Patients were assessed for sensory block by the pinprick method at 5 and 20 minutes.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in the rates of anesthesia at 20 minutes in the cutaneous nerve distributions of the upper limb between radial plus musculocutaneous and ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation except for the following nerves: radial (90% and 63.3%, respectively), medial cutaneous of the forearm (83.3% and 100%, respectively), and medial cutaneous of the arm (73.3% and 93.3%, respectively). Global sensory score (minimum: 0; maximum: 12 points) at 20 minutes was significantly higher after radial plus musculocutaneous than after ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation: 12 (11-13) and 11 (10-12), respectively. The rates of median nerve blockade were 50% and 53%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Radial plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation produced more extensive anesthesia of the upper limb than did ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation. However, there is not an optimal combination of 2 responses in axillary brachial plexus block.
| Errataetall: |
CommentIn: Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 May-Jun;31(3):192-5. - PMID 16701181 |
|---|---|
| Medienart: |
Artikel |
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2006 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2006 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:31 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Regional anesthesia and pain medicine - 31(2006), 3 vom: 01. Mai, Seite 202-5 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Rodríguez, Jaime [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Themen: |
Anesthetics, Local |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 06.11.2007 Date Revised 09.01.2019 published: Print CommentIn: Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 May-Jun;31(3):192-5. - PMID 16701181 Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
|---|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM162824211 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM162824211 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231223095036.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 231223s2006 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0543.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM162824211 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)16701183 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Rodríguez, Jaime |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 2 | |a A comparison of stimulation patterns in axillary block |b part 2 |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2006 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 06.11.2007 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 09.01.2019 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a CommentIn: Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 May-Jun;31(3):192-5. - PMID 16701181 | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Radial plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation may have a predominant role in the success of an axillary block, producing more extensive anesthesia of the upper limb than median plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation. However, no comparison has been made with ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation. We compared the extent of both sensory and motor block after ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation or radial plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive an axillary block using either radial plus musculocutaneous or ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation with 40 mL plain 1.5% mepivacaine. Patients were assessed for sensory block by the pinprick method at 5 and 20 minutes | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in the rates of anesthesia at 20 minutes in the cutaneous nerve distributions of the upper limb between radial plus musculocutaneous and ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation except for the following nerves: radial (90% and 63.3%, respectively), medial cutaneous of the forearm (83.3% and 100%, respectively), and medial cutaneous of the arm (73.3% and 93.3%, respectively). Global sensory score (minimum: 0; maximum: 12 points) at 20 minutes was significantly higher after radial plus musculocutaneous than after ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation: 12 (11-13) and 11 (10-12), respectively. The rates of median nerve blockade were 50% and 53%, respectively | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Radial plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation produced more extensive anesthesia of the upper limb than did ulnar plus musculocutaneous nerve stimulation. However, there is not an optimal combination of 2 responses in axillary brachial plexus block | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Randomized Controlled Trial | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Anesthetics, Local |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Mepivacaine |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a B6E06QE59J |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Taboada, Manuel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Valiño, Cristina |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bárcena, María |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Alvarez, Julián |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Regional anesthesia and pain medicine |d 1998 |g 31(2006), 3 vom: 01. Mai, Seite 202-5 |w (DE-627)NLM09493827X |x 1532-8651 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:31 |g year:2006 |g number:3 |g day:01 |g month:05 |g pages:202-5 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 31 |j 2006 |e 3 |b 01 |c 05 |h 202-5 | ||