Home > Riviste > Minerva Anestesiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Anestesiologica 2020 January;86(1) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2020 January;86(1):23-9

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Anestesiologica 2020 January;86(1):23-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.19.12402-9

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Perifascial plane versus perineural approaches for ultrasound-guided axillary block: go to the simplest?

Lucie BEYLACQ 1 , Elodie BAER 1, Olivier CHOQUET 2, Henri-Louis DUPRE 1, Xavier CAPDEVILA 2

1 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine 3, Victor Segalen University Hospital, Bordeaux, France; 2 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Lapeyronie University Hospital and Inserm Unit 1051, Montpellier, France



BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided axillary block is widely used in daily practice for upper limb orthopedic surgery. A simple, safe, efficacious and time-saving technique is mandatory to optimize surgical turnover and costs. In this perspective, we compared, in a randomized, single-blinded study, a standardized perifascial technique and the selective perineural technique.
METHODS: Forty-two patients scheduled for elective hand surgery were randomly assigned to receive 20 mL of 10 mg/mL mepivacaine, either selectively around each of the radial, median, ulnar and musculocutaneous nerves (perineural group) or along the latissimus dorsi and superficial axillary fascia (perifascial group). The primary outcome was the procedure performance time in both groups. Secondary goals were the number of needle passes, a per-procedure evaluation of the performance on a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 10, the success rate and the incidence of adverse events.
RESULTS: Performance time was significantly reduced in the perifascial group (3.6 vs. 6.5 min, P<0.001), with fewer needle passes (3 vs. 6, P<0.001) and a simpler procedure performance (8.5 vs. 7.6, P=0.02). No vascular punctures or neurologic deficits were reported. Surgical anesthesia (95% in both groups) and complete anesthetic success (perifascial 81% vs. perineural 95%) were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: We reported that the ultrasound-guided axillary perifascial block is easier to perform and saves procedural time compared to the classic perineural technique. Considering the same anesthetic success rate in both groups, the perifascial plane technique should be considered a daily practice technique and the first level of learning procedure for axillary block.


KEY WORDS: Axilla; Orthopedics; Mepivacaine

inizio pagina