Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of electrical stimulation in ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block: a retrospective study on how response pattern and minimal evoked current affect the resultant blockade

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Anesthesia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Nerve stimulation may be combined with ultrasound imaging for a block of deeply located nerves such as the sciatic nerve in the subgluteal region. At present, it is unknown how the use of nerve stimulation affects blockade after this nerve block. We retrospectively compared the effects of the two types of motor response and those of minimal evoked current above and below 0.5 mA on ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block using mepivacaine or ropivacaine, two local anesthetics with different onset time and duration.

Methods

We reviewed records and video images of patients who, from April 2008 until October 2011, received ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block combined with nerve stimulation using 20 ml of either 1.5 % mepivacaine with 1:400,000 epinephrine or 0.5 % ropivacaine. Sensory and motor blockade data for 30 min after the block and for the duration of the blockade were gathered. Patients for whom any data were missing, the video image was poor, and/or intraneural injection was observed during the block were excluded from the study. The same data were compared in two ways: regarding the motor response pattern between the response of the tibial nerve and the common peroneal nerve, and regarding the minimal current between low current (< 0.5 mA) and high current (≥0.5 mA). The primary endpoints were the onset and duration of blockade of the sciatic nerve block.

Results

We analyzed the data of 170 and 99 patients who received mepivacaine and ropivacaine, respectively. The progress of sensory and motor blockade as well as block duration was similar between different motor response patterns after both anesthetics. The proportion of patients who developed sensory block of the tibial nerve and motor block at 30 min was higher in the low minimal current group than in the other group receiving mepivacaine. Patients in the former group also had longer block duration. With ropivacaine, complete motor blockade was present at 30 min in a higher proportion of patients after lower minimal evoked current than after higher minimal evoked current.

Conclusion

When ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block was conducted with nerve stimulation, the motor response pattern did not markedly affect the progress of sensory or motor blockade or block duration. Lower minimal evoked current was associated with faster onset in sensory and motor block and longer block duration after mepivacaine and faster onset in motor block after ropivacaine. The clinical significance of this, however, has yet to be determined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abrahams MS, Aziz MF, Fu RF, Horn J-L. Ultrasound guidance compared with electrical neurostimulation for peripheral nerve block: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102:408–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gelfand HJ, Ouanes J-PP, Lesley MR, Ko PS, Murphy JD, Sumida SM, Isaac GR, Kumar K, Wu CL. Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia: a meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2011;23:90–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ota J, Sakura S, Hara K, Saito Y. Ultrasound-guided anterior approach to sciatic nerve block: a comparison with the posterior approach. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:660–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sukhani R, Nader A, Candido KD, Doty RJ, Benzon HT, Yaghmour E, Kendall MC, McCarthy RJ. Nerve stimulator-assisted evoked motor response predicts the latency and success of a single-injection sciatic block. Anesth Analg. 2004;99:584–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Haleem S, Siddiqui AK, Mowafi HA, Ismail SA, Ali QA. Nerve stimulator evoked motor response predicting a successful supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Anesth Analg. 2010;110:1745–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sakura S, Hara K. Using ultrasound guidance in peripheral nerve blocks. Trends Anaesth Crit Care. 2012;2:274–80.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sakura S, Hara K, Ota J, Tadenuma S. Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: effect of obturator nerve block during and after surgery. J Anesth. 2010;24:411–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hara K, Sakura S, Shido A. Ultrasound-guided lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block: comparison of two techniques. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2011;39:69–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hara K, Sakura S, Yokokawa N, Tadenuma S. Incidence and effects of unintentional intraneural injection during ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012;37:289–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Benzon HT, Kim C, Benzon HP, Silverstein ME, Jericho B, Prillaman K, Buenaventura R. Correlation between evoked motor response of the sciatic nerve and sensory blockade. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:547–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Taboada M, Alvarez J, Cortes J, Rodriguez J, Atanassoff P. Lateral approach to the sciatic nerve block in the popliteal fossa: correlation between evoked motor response and sensory block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2003;28:450–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hagon BS, Itani O, Bidgoli JH, Van der Linden PJ. Parasacral sciatic nerve block: does the elicited motor response predict the success rate? Anesth Analg. 2007;105:263–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Taboada M, Atanassoff PG, Rodriguez J, Cortes J, Del Rio S, Lagunilla J, Gude F, Alvarez J. Plantar flexion seems more reliable than dorsiflexion with Labat’s sciatic nerve block: a prospective, randomized comparison. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:250–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sinha SK, Abrams JH, Weller RS. Ultrasound-guided interscalene needle placement produces successful anesthesia regardless of motor stimulation above or below 0.5 mA. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:848–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rigaud M, Filip P, Lirk P, Fuchs A, Gemes G. Guidance of block needle insertion by electrical nerve stimulation. Anesthesiology. 2008;109:473–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Steinfeldt T, Graf J, Vassiliou T, Morin AM, Feldmann K, Nimphius W, De Andres J, Wulf H. High or low current threshold for nerve stimulation for regional anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:1275–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Macfarlane AJR, Bhatia A, Brull R. Needle to nerve proximity: what do the animal studies tell us? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011;36:290–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Perlas A, Niazi A, McCartney CJL, Chan VWS, Xu DQ, Abbas S. The sensitivity of motor response to nerve stimulation and paresthesia for nerve localization as evaluated by ultrasound. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006;31:445–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Nasser B, Hubert C, Negre M. Role of local anesthetic spread pattern and electrical stimulation in ultrasound-guided musculocutaneous nerve block. J Clin Anesth. 2010;22:334–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dufour E, Cymerman A, Nourry G, Balland N, Couturier C, Liu N, Dreyfus J-F, Fischler M. An ultrasonographic assessment of nerve stimulation-guided median nerve block at the elbow: a local anesthetic spread, nerve size, and clinical efficacy study. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:561–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sala-Blanch X, Lopez AM, Carazo J, Hadzic A, Carrera A, Pomes J, Valls-Sole J. Intraneural injection during nerve stimulator-guided sciatic nerve block at the popliteal fossa. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102:855–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Robards CB, Hadzic A, Somasundaram L, Iwata T, Gadsden J, Xu D, Sala-Blanch X. Intraneural injection with low-current stimulation during popliteal sciatic nerve block. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:673–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Morau D, Levy F, Bringuier S, Biboulet P, Choquet O, Kassim M, Bernard N, Capdevila X. Ultrasound-guided evaluation of the local anesthetic spread parameters required for a rapid surgical popliteal sciatic nerve block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35:559–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brull R, Macfarlane AJR, Parrington SJ, Koshkin A, Chan VWS. Is circumferential injection advantageous for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block? Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011;36:266–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided from departmental and institutional sources.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital, Shimane University School of Medicine, Izumo, Japan

    Kaoru Hara & Naomi Yokokawa

  2. Surgical Center, University Hospital, Shimane University School of Medicine, 89-1 Enya-cho, Izumo, 693-8501, Japan

    Shinichi Sakura

Authors
  1. Kaoru Hara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shinichi Sakura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Naomi Yokokawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shinichi Sakura.

About this article

Cite this article

Hara, K., Sakura, S. & Yokokawa, N. The role of electrical stimulation in ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block: a retrospective study on how response pattern and minimal evoked current affect the resultant blockade. J Anesth 28, 524–531 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-013-1746-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-013-1746-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation