These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Ultrasound-guided Retroclavicular Approach Versus Costoclavicular Approach of Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block for Upper Limb Surgeries.
    Author: Attia JZ, Gaber RN, Mohamed SR.
    Journal: Pain Physician; 2023 Oct; 26(6):E651-E660. PubMed ID: 37847918.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia for an upper limb provides many advantages over general anesthesia, especially in orthopedic surgery. OBJECTIVES: This trial aimed to compare a retroclavicular approach to the infraclavicular brachial plexus with a costoclavicular approach in term of needle time, image time, and procedure time, and comparing both with the classic technique for upper limb surgeries guided by ultrasound. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-blinded controlled trial. SETTING: Minia University, Faculty of Medicine, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Department. METHODS: Sixty patients of both sees with an American Society of Anesthesiologists  Classification of I and II, a BMI (kg/m2) of 20-35, aged from 18-60 years who were scheduled for a forearm or hand surgery under infraclavicular brachial plexus block were divided into 3 parallel equal groups. Group I (RC) received a retroclavicular approach.  Group II (CC)received a costoclavicular approach.  Group III (CT) received the classic technique. Procedure time, the sum of the imaging and needling times, was our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the motor and sensory block success rate 30 minutes postinjection of local anesthesia, duration of motor and sensory block, Visual Analog Score, first analgesic need, total analgesia requirements during the first postoperative 24 hours, and any complications. RESULTS: The procedure and needle times were significantly decreased in the retroclavicular group due to better needle visibility. There was no significant difference regarding sensory and motor block data. The VAS score in the first postoperative 24 hours showed no statistical significance. Regarding analgesic data and patient satisfaction, there was no statistical significance among the 3 studied groups. There were no complications in any of the used approaches. LIMITATION: Our trial did not include patients with a BMI > 35. CONCLUSIONS: The retroclavicular approach is superior because of its decreased procedure time and needle time than both the costoclavicular approach and classic approach.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]