Ruiz A, Sala-Blanch X, Martinez-Ocón J, Carretero M J, Sánchez-Etayo G, Hadzic A
Department of Anaesthesiology, Hospital Clínic, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
Department of Anaesthesiology, Hospital Clínic, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2014 Feb;61(2):73-7. doi: 10.1016/j.redar.2013.09.023. Epub 2013 Dec 5.
The optimal method of ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block (in-plane vs. out-of-plane) has not been established. We tested the hypothesis that the incidence of needle-nerve contact may be higher with out-of-plane than with in-plane needle insertion.
Forty-four patients with hip fracture (American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status I-III) were randomized to receive the femoral block with an out-of-plane approach (needle inserted at a 45-60° angle 1cm caudal to the midpoint of the ultrasound probe just above the femoral nerve) or with an in-plane technique (needle inserted 0.2-0.4 cm from the side of the probe lateral to the femoral nerve). Data collected included depth of needle insertion, response to nerve electric stimulation, and distribution of the injected volume in relation to the nerve (anterior vs. posterior, the latter assuming needle-nerve contact). The sensory block onset was tested at 20 min and block recovery and any neurologic symptoms were evaluated at 24h.
The incidence of needle-nerve contact was significantly higher with the out-of-plane approach (14/22 patients [64%]) than with the in-plane approach (2/22 patients [9%]) (p<0.001) (OR=17.5, 95% CI: 4-79). The rate of paraesthesia on crossing the fascia iliaca was similar in the two groups. All blocks uneventfully regressed; and no patient developed neurologic symptoms.
Under the conditions of our study, needle-nerve contact during femoral nerve block occurs frequently with the out-of-plane approach. An in-plane approach results in an equally effective femoral block and less incidence of needle-nerve contact.
超声引导下股神经阻滞的最佳方法(平面内与平面外)尚未确定。我们检验了这样一个假设,即平面外进针时针与神经接触的发生率可能高于平面内进针。
44例髋部骨折患者(美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级为I - III级)被随机分为两组,分别接受平面外法股神经阻滞(在股神经上方超声探头中点尾侧1cm处,以45 - 60°角进针)或平面内法(在股神经外侧距探头边缘0.2 - 0.4cm处进针)。收集的数据包括进针深度、对神经电刺激的反应以及注射药物相对于神经的分布情况(前方与后方,后者表示针与神经接触)。在20分钟时测试感觉阻滞起效情况,并在24小时时评估阻滞恢复情况及任何神经症状。
平面外法针与神经接触的发生率(14/22例患者[64%])显著高于平面内法(2/22例患者[9%])(p<0.001)(OR = 17.5,95%CI:4 - 79)。两组在穿过髂筋膜时出现感觉异常的发生率相似。所有阻滞均顺利消退;且无患者出现神经症状。
在我们的研究条件下,平面外法进行股神经阻滞时针与神经接触频繁发生。平面内法导致的股神经阻滞效果相同且针与神经接触的发生率更低。