Department of Anesthesiology, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, NY 10025, USA.
J Clin Anesth. 2011 Dec;23(8):626-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2011.04.006.
To test the hypothesis that, if the femoral nerve is correctly localized using ultrasound (US) guidance, the type of perineural catheter used has no effect on catheter success.
Randomized controlled trial.
Post-anesthesia care unit of an academic teaching hospital.
40 ASA physical status 1, 2, and 3 patients, ages 55-85 years, undergoing elective total knee arthroplasty.
All patients received postoperative continuous femoral nerve blocks and a single injection sciatic nerve block. Nerve localization was accomplished using US guidance and electrical nerve stimulation so that the needle tip was visualized deep to the femoral nerve. Patients were randomized to receive either stimulating (Group SC) or nonstimulating catheters (Group NSC) in the usual manner for each device. Catheters were bolused with ropivacaine and an infusion commenced.
The primary outcome was quality of analgesia (as measured by a numerical rating scale). Other outcomes included sensory block success rate, number of attempts and time required to localize the needle tip correctly, number of attempts and time required to place the perineural catheter, amount of local anesthetic and opioid use postoperatively, and degree of completion of preset postoperative rehabilitation goals.
Quality of analgesia was similar at all time intervals. Rates of successful femoral block (95% vs 80%; P = 0.34) were similar between groups. Time required to position the catheter was greater in Group SC than Group NSC (3.45 ± 2.05 min vs 1.72 ± 0.88 min; P < 0.01).
Ultrasound guidance for needle localization prior to catheter insertion for femoral nerve block results in similar block characteristics between stimulating and nonstimulating catheters. The use of nonstimulating catheters avoids the technical challenges of stimulating catheters and does not require additional helpers.
验证如下假设,即如果使用超声(US)引导正确定位股神经,则使用的神经周围导管类型不会对导管成功率产生影响。
随机对照试验。
学术教学医院的麻醉后护理单元。
40 名 ASA 身体状况 1、2 和 3 级、年龄 55-85 岁的患者,接受择期全膝关节置换术。
所有患者均接受术后连续股神经阻滞和单次坐骨神经阻滞。使用 US 引导和电神经刺激来实现神经定位,以便针尖在股神经深处可视化。患者随机接受刺激(SC 组)或非刺激导管(NSC 组),每种设备均采用常规方式放置导管。导管用罗哌卡因推注,并开始输注。
主要结局是镇痛质量(通过数字评分量表测量)。其他结局包括感觉阻滞成功率、正确定位针尖所需的尝试次数和时间、放置神经周围导管所需的尝试次数和时间、术后局部麻醉药和阿片类药物的使用量以及预设术后康复目标的完成程度。
在所有时间间隔内,镇痛质量相似。股神经阻滞成功率(95%对 80%;P = 0.34)在两组之间相似。SC 组比 NSC 组放置导管所需的时间更长(3.45 ± 2.05 分钟对 1.72 ± 0.88 分钟;P < 0.01)。
在插入股神经阻滞导管之前,使用超声引导进行针定位可导致刺激和非刺激导管之间具有相似的阻滞特征。使用非刺激导管可避免刺激导管的技术挑战,且不需要额外的助手。