Rucci F S, Barbagli R, Doni L
Centro Traumatologico Ortopedico, Policlinico, Careggi, Firenze.
Minerva Anestesiol. 1992 Jan-Feb;58(1-2):27-38.
The effects of interscalene block were studied on 109 patients undergoing upper extremity elective orthopaedic surgery. Blocks were performed in a non-randomized manner with three different techniques, the site where anaesthetic solution was injected being the main distinguishing mark. The anaesthetic solution was injected into the interscalenic compartment both in the case of patients where classic technique had been carried out and in the group where the nerve stimulator had been used. In the "double needle" technique group, on the contrary, the anaesthetic solution was injected close to the vertebral column. The spread of analgesia involves the caudal portion of the cervical plexus and the cranial portion of the brachial plexus, but with the cervical plexus is almost certain to be involved, the brachial is not. Block outcome was related to the surgical procedure (surgery or orthopaedic manipulation), the site of surgery, paraesthesia elicitation, prolonged surgery and height, weight, age and sex of patients. Results also different according to the technique used. When the anaesthetic solution was injected close to the vertebral column analgesic cover was more widespread and lesser amounts of anaesthetic needed. When the block was performed within the interscalenic compartment, the analgesic cover was usually restricted to the area supplied by the primary superior trunk of the brachial plexus. The different results were explained by the presence of fibrous sheaths within the interscalenic compartment limiting spread of the anaesthetic, which are absent close to the vertebral column. Therefore two types of interscalene block were postulated: an intrascalene or troncular block within the interscalenic compartment and a radicular or paravertebral block close the vertebral column.
对109例接受上肢择期骨科手术的患者进行了肌间沟阻滞效果的研究。采用三种不同技术以非随机方式进行阻滞,麻醉溶液注射部位是主要区别标志。在采用经典技术的患者组以及使用神经刺激器的组中,均将麻醉溶液注入肌间沟间隙。相反,在“双针”技术组中,将麻醉溶液注射在靠近脊柱处。镇痛范围涉及颈丛的尾部和臂丛的头部,但几乎可以肯定颈丛会被累及,而臂丛则不一定。阻滞结果与手术操作(手术或骨科手法)、手术部位、引出异感、手术时间延长以及患者的身高、体重、年龄和性别有关。结果也因所采用的技术而异。当将麻醉溶液注射在靠近脊柱处时,镇痛覆盖范围更广,所需麻醉剂用量更少。当在肌间沟间隙内进行阻滞时,镇痛覆盖范围通常局限于臂丛主要上干所供应的区域。不同结果的原因是肌间沟间隙内存在纤维鞘限制了麻醉剂的扩散,而靠近脊柱处则不存在这种纤维鞘。因此,推测存在两种类型的肌间沟阻滞:肌间沟间隙内的肌内或干阻滞以及靠近脊柱的神经根或椎旁阻滞。