Salinas Francis V, Neal Joseph M, Sueda Lila A, Kopacz Dan J, Liu Spencer S
Department of Anesthesiology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 9th Avenue, B2-AN, Seattle, WA 98101, USA.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004 May-Jun;29(3):212-20. doi: 10.1016/j.rapm.2004.02.009.
Stimulating catheter-guided perineural placement may potentially increase the success rate and quality of continuous femoral nerve block as compared with a nonstimulating catheter technique. These hypotheses have not been rigorously tested.
Twenty volunteers underwent placement of bilateral femoral nerve catheters in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. For each side, a stimulating needle was advanced until quadriceps contractions were obtained at < or =0.5 mA. On one side, a stimulating catheter was advanced 4 to 5 cm beyond the needle tip while eliciting quadriceps contractions via the catheter. If quadriceps contractions decreased or disappeared, the catheter position was adjusted until quadriceps contractions could be elicited at < or =0.5 mA. On the contralateral side, an identical catheter was advanced 4 to 5 cm beyond the needle tip without attempts to elicit quadriceps contractions via the catheter. After bolus injection of 10 mL lidocaine 1%, ropivacaine 0.2% at 10 mL/h was continuously infused through both catheters for 4 hours. Success of femoral block was defined as loss of sensation to cold and pinprick stimuli. Quality of successful block was determined by tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation and force dynamometry of quadriceps strength.
Block success was 100% via the stimulating catheters versus 85% via the nonstimulating catheters (P =.07). Overall tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation (P =.009) and overall depth of motor block (P =.03) was significantly higher in the stimulating catheter-guided femoral nerve blocks.
In this volunteer study, there was no statistically significant difference in block success between the two techniques. However, stimulating catheter-guided placement provided an increased overall quality of continuous femoral perineural blockade. Further studies are needed to verify these observations in the clinical setting.
与非刺激导管技术相比,刺激导管引导下的神经周围置管可能会提高连续股神经阻滞的成功率和质量。这些假设尚未得到严格验证。
在这项前瞻性、随机、双盲研究中,20名志愿者接受了双侧股神经导管置管。对于每一侧,将刺激针推进,直到在≤0.5毫安时获得股四头肌收缩。在一侧,将刺激导管在针尖端之外推进4至5厘米,同时通过导管引发股四头肌收缩。如果股四头肌收缩减弱或消失,调整导管位置,直到在≤0.5毫安时能引发股四头肌收缩。在对侧,将相同的导管在针尖端之外推进4至5厘米,不试图通过导管引发股四头肌收缩。在推注10毫升1%利多卡因后,以10毫升/小时的速度通过两根导管持续输注0.2%罗哌卡因4小时。股神经阻滞成功定义为对冷和针刺刺激感觉丧失。成功阻滞的质量通过对经皮电刺激的耐受性和股四头肌力量的测力计测定。
通过刺激导管的阻滞成功率为100%,而非刺激导管为85%(P = 0.07)。在刺激导管引导的股神经阻滞中,对经皮电刺激的总体耐受性(P = 0.009)和运动阻滞的总体深度(P = 0.03)显著更高。
在这项志愿者研究中,两种技术在阻滞成功率上无统计学显著差异。然而,刺激导管引导下的置管提高了连续股神经周围阻滞的总体质量。需要进一步研究在临床环境中验证这些观察结果。