Advertisement

Journal of Anesthesia

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 471–474 | Cite as

Comparison of catheter tip migration using flexible and stimulating catheters inserted into the adductor canal in a cadaver model

  • Christopher A. J. Webb
  • T. Edward Kim
  • Natasha Funck
  • Steven K. Howard
  • T. Kyle Harrison
  • Toni Ganaway
  • Heidi Keng
  • Edward R. MarianoEmail author
Short Communication

Abstract

Use of adductor canal blocks and catheters for perioperative pain management following total knee arthroplasty is becoming increasingly common. However, the optimal equipment, timing of catheter insertion, and catheter dislodgement rate remain unknown. A previous study has suggested, but not proven, that non-tunneled stimulating catheters may be at increased risk for catheter migration and dislodgement after knee manipulation. We designed this follow-up study to directly compare tip migration of two catheter types after knee range of motion exercises. In a male unembalmed human cadaver, 30 catheter insertion trials were randomly assigned to one of two catheter types: flexible or stimulating. All catheters were inserted using an ultrasound-guided short-axis in-plane technique. Intraoperative knee manipulation similar to that performed during surgery was simulated by five sequential range of motion exercises. A blinded regional anesthesiologist performed caliper measurements on the ultrasound images before and after exercise. Changes in catheter tip to nerve distance (p = 0.547) and catheter length within the adductor canal (p = 0.498) were not different between groups. Therefore, catheter type may not affect the risk of catheter tip migration when placed prior to knee arthroplasty.

Keywords

Regional anesthesia Adductor canal block Perineural catheter Total knee arthroplasty Catheter dislodgement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Russell Sanchez and the Pathology Service, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Mariano has received unrestricted educational program funding paid to his institution from I-Flow (Lake Forest, CA, USA) and B Braun (Bethlehem, PA, USA). These companies had absolutely no input into any aspect of the present study conceptualization, design, and implementation; data collection, analysis and interpretation; or manuscript preparation. None of the other authors has any personal financial interests to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Hanson NA, Allen CJ, Hostetter LS, Nagy R, Derby RE, Slee AE, Arslan A, Auyong DB. Continuous ultrasound-guided adductor canal block for total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind trial. Anesth Analg. 2014;118:1370–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim DH, Lin Y, Goytizolo EA, Kahn RL, Maalouf DB, Manohar A, Patt ML, Goon AK, Lee YY, Ma Y, Yadeau JT. Adductor canal block vs femoral nerve block for total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2014;120:540–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mudumbai SC, Kim TE, Howard SK, Workman JJ, Giori N, Woolson S, Ganaway T, King R, Mariano ER. Continuous adductor canal blocks are superior to continuous femoral nerve blocks in promoting early ambulation after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:1377–83.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mariano ER, Perlas A. Adductor canal block for total knee arthroplasty: the perfect recipe or just one ingredient? Anesthesiology. 2014;120:530–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lund J, Jenstrup MT, Jaeger P, Sorensen AM, Dahl JB. Continuous adductor-canal-blockade for adjuvant post-operative analgesia after major knee surgery: preliminary results. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011;55:14–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mariano ER, Kim TE, Wagner MJ, Funck N, Harrison TK, Walters T, Giori N, Woolson S, Ganaway T, Howard SK. A randomized comparison of proximal and distal ultrasound-guided adductor canal catheter insertion sites for knee arthroplasty. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33:1653–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jaeger P, Zaric D, Fomsgaard JS, Hilsted KL, Bjerregaard J, Gyrn J, Mathiesen O, Larsen TK, Dahl JB. Adductor canal block vs femoral nerve block for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38:526–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shah NA, Jain NP. Is continuous adductor canal block better than continuous femoral nerve block after total knee arthroplasty? Effect on ambulation ability, early functional recovery and pain control: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahsan ZS, Carvalho B, Yao J. Incidence of failure of continuous peripheral nerve catheters for postoperative analgesia in upper extremity surgery. J Hand Surg Am. 2014;39:324–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leng JC, Harrison TK, Miller B, Howard SK, Conroy M, Udani A, Shum C, Mariano ER. A pilot study to assess adductor canal catheter tip migration in a cadaver model. J Anesth 2014 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ilfeld BM. Continuous peripheral nerve blocks: a review of the published evidence. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:904–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ilfeld BM, Fredrickson MJ, Mariano ER. Ultrasound-guided perineural catheter insertion: three approaches but few illuminating data. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35:123–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gandhi K, Lindenmuth DM, Hadzic A, Xu D, Patel VS, Maliakal TJ, Gadsden JC. The effect of stimulating vs conventional perineural catheters on postoperative analgesia following ultrasound-guided femoral nerve localization. J Clin Anesth. 2011;23:626–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farag E, Atim A, Ghosh R, Bauer M, Sreenivasalu T, Kot M, Kurz A, Dalton JE, Mascha EJ, Mounir-Soliman L, Zaky S, Ali Sakr Esa W, Udeh BL, Barsoum W, Sessler DI. Comparison of three techniques for ultrasound-guided femoral nerve catheter insertion: a randomized, blinded trial. Anesthesiology. 2014;121:239–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hayek SM, Ritchey RM, Sessler D, Helfand R, Samuel S, Xu M, Beven M, Bourdakos D, Barsoum W, Brooks P. Continuous femoral nerve analgesia after unilateral total knee arthroplasty: stimulating vs nonstimulating catheters. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:1565–70.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morin AM, Eberhart LH, Behnke HK, Wagner S, Koch T, Wolf U, Nau W, Kill C, Geldner G, Wulf H. Does femoral nerve catheter placement with stimulating catheters improve effective placement? A randomized, controlled, and observer-blinded trial. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:1503–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandhu NS, Sidhu DS, Capan LM. The cost comparison of infraclavicular brachial plexus block by nerve stimulator and ultrasound guidance. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:267–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Symons B, Wuest S, Leonard T, Herzog W. Biomechanical characterization of cervical spinal manipulation in living subjects and cadavers. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012;22:747–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mariano ER, Yun RD, Kim TE, Carvalho B. Application of echogenic technology for catheters used in ultrasound-guided continuous peripheral nerve blocks. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33:905–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kan JM, Harrison TK, Kim TE, Howard SK, Kou A, Mariano ER. An in vitro study to evaluate the utility of the “air test” to infer perineural catheter tip location. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:529–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grant SA, Nielsen KC, Greengrass RA, Steele SM, Klein SM. Continuous peripheral nerve block for ambulatory surgery. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2001;26:209–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ip VH, Tsui BC. The catheter-over-needle assembly facilitates delivery of a second local anesthetic bolus to prolong supraclavicular brachial plexus block without time-consuming catheterization steps: a randomized controlled study. Can J Anaesth. 2013;60:692–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mariano ER, Kim TE, Funck N, Walters T, Wagner MJ, Harrison TK, Giori N, Woolson S, Ganaway T, Howard SK. A randomized comparison of long-and short-axis imaging for in-plane ultrasound-guided femoral perineural catheter insertion. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:149–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsui BC, Ozelsel TJ. Ultrasound-guided anterior sciatic nerve block using a longitudinal approach: “expanding the view”. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008;33:275–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher A. J. Webb
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. Edward Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Natasha Funck
    • 1
    • 2
  • Steven K. Howard
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. Kyle Harrison
    • 1
    • 2
  • Toni Ganaway
    • 1
  • Heidi Keng
    • 2
  • Edward R. Mariano
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain MedicineStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care Service, VA Palo Alto Health Care SystemPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations