Abstract
In a prospective controlled trial to compare conventional interscalene brachial plexus block (ISBPB) using anatomic landmarks and electro-stimulation with a combined technique of ultrasound guidance followed by nerve stimulation, 60 patients were randomized into 2 matched equal groups: Group A using nerve stimulation (NS) alone and Group B using the combination of ultrasound and NS. The time to detect the plexus (3.9 ± 4 min in Group A and 3.3 ± 1.4 min in Group B) was not significantly different. We needed to reposition the needle once (n = 13) or twice (n = 4) in Group B. First-shot motor response was achieved in all but one patient in Group A; here we were only able to locate the plexus by use of ultrasound. None of the patients needed general anaesthesia. There were no significant differences between postoperative pain, motor power, or patient’s satisfaction. ISBPB seems similarly effective using electro-stimulation and ultrasound if performed by experienced anesthesiologists.
References
Winnie AP. Interscalene brachial plexus block. Anesth Analg. 1970;49:455–66.
Faryniarz D, Morelli C, Coleman S, Holmes T, Allen A, Altchek D, Cordasco F, Warren RF, Urban MK, Gordon MA. Interscalene block anesthesia at an ambulatory surgery center performing predominantly regional anesthesia: a prospective study of one hundred thirty-three patients undergoing shoulder surgery. J Should Elbow Surg. 2006;15:686–90.
Marhofer P, Greher M, Kapral S. Ultrasound guidance in regional anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:7–17.
Tsui B. Ultrasound-guidance and nerve stimulation: implication for the future practice of regional anesthesia. Can J Anesth. 2007;54:165–70.
Kapral S, Krafft P, Eibenberger K, Fitzgerald R, Gosch M, Weinstabl C. Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular approach for regional anesthesia of the brachial plexus. Anesth Analg. 1994;78:507–13.
Brull R, Perlas A, Chan V. Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blockade. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2007;11:25–32.
Chan VW. Applying ultrasound imaging to interscalene brachial plexus block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2003;28:340–3.
Schwemmer U, Papenfuss T, Greim C, Brederlau J, Roewer N. Ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus anaesthesia: differences in success between patients of normal and excessive weight. Ultraschall Med. 2006;27:245–50.
Chan VW, Perlas A, McCartney CJ, Brull R, Xu D, Abbas S. Ultrasound guidance improves success rate of axillary brachial plexus block. Can J Anesth. 2007;54:176–82.
Casati A, Danelli G, Baciarello M, Corradi M, Leone S, Di Cianni S, Fannelli G. A prospective randomized comparison between ultrasound and nerve stimulation guidance for multiple injection axillary brachial plexus block. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:992–6.
Fredrickson MJ, Ball CM, Dalgleish AJ, Stewart AW, Short TG. A prospective randomised comparison of ultrasound and neurostimulation as needle end points for interscalene catheter placement. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:1695–700.
Liu SS, Zayas VM, Gordon MA, Beathe JC, Maalouf DB, Paroli L, Liguori GA, Ortiz J, Buschiazzo V, Ngeow J, Shetty T, Ya Deau JT. A prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing ultrasound versus nerve stimulator guidance for interscalene block for ambulatory shoulder surgery for postoperative neurological symptoms. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:265–71.
Meier G, Bauereis C, Maurer H, Meier T. Interscalene plexus block. Anatomic requirements—anesthesiologic and operative aspects. Anaesthesist. 2001;50:333–41.
Choyce A, Chan VW, Middleton WJ, Knight PR, Peng P, McCartney CJ. What is the relationship between paresthesia and nerve stimulator for axillary brachial plexus block? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2001;26:100–4.
Urmey WF, Stanton J. Inability to consistently elicit a motor response paresthesia during interscalene block administration. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:552–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Salem, M.H., Winckelmann, J., Geiger, P. et al. Electrostimulation with or without ultrasound-guidance in interscalene brachial plexus block for shoulder surgery. J Anesth 26, 610–613 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-012-1366-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-012-1366-x