Cappelleri Gianluca, Cedrati Valeria Libera Eva, Fedele Luisa Luciana, Gemma Marco, Camici Laura, Loiero Mario, Gallazzi Mauro Battista, Cornaggia Gabriele
From the *Istituto Ortopedico G. Pini; †Università dell'Insubria di Varese; and ‡IRCCS San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016 Jul-Aug;41(4):430-7. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000413.
This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared the effects of the ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block performed by either intraneural or subparaneural approach followed by an electrophysiological evaluation. We hypothesized that intraneural injection provides a faster onset with a better success rate compared with the subparaneural approach.
Eighty-eight patients were enrolled and randomized to receive an ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block injecting 15 mL ropivacaine 1% according to an intraneural injection (group INTRA = 44) or a subparaneural injection (group SUBPARA = 44). The primary end point was the onset time of sensory and motor block, whereas secondary end points were successful, duration of the block, and the variation of the electrophysiological assessment after 5 weeks. The study was registered prior to patient enrollment (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01987128).
The median onset time for successful sciatic nerve block in the INTRA group was 10 (5-15 [5-30]) minutes versus 25 (15-35 [5-45]) minutes in the SUBPARA group (P < 0.001), with a rate of 41/43 (95.3%) compared with 25/40 (62.5%) in the SUBPARA group (P < 0.001). No difference was found regardless of the duration of the block. Fifty-three patients also performed the electrophysiological assessment at 5 weeks, showing a subclinical, significant reduction in amplitude of the action potentials with no difference between groups. No patients reported any clinical neurological complications after 6 months.
In ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block, intraneural injection provided a faster onset and better success rate compared with subparaneural. Both techniques resulted in a similar subclinical reduction in amplitude of the sciatic action potentials at 5 weeks after surgery. These findings should not be extended to other approaches.
本前瞻性、随机、双盲研究比较了神经内注射或神经旁注射法进行超声引导下腘部坐骨神经阻滞的效果,并随后进行了电生理评估。我们假设与神经旁注射法相比,神经内注射起效更快且成功率更高。
88例患者入组并随机分为两组,分别接受超声引导下腘部坐骨神经阻滞,神经内注射组(INTRA组 = 44例)注射1% 15 mL罗哌卡因,神经旁注射组(SUBPARA组 = 44例)注射同样剂量罗哌卡因。主要终点是感觉和运动阻滞的起效时间,次要终点是阻滞成功情况、阻滞持续时间以及术后5周电生理评估的变化。本研究在患者入组前已注册(clinicaltrials.gov标识符NCT01987128)。
INTRA组坐骨神经阻滞成功的中位起效时间为10(5 - 15 [5 - 30])分钟,而SUBPARA组为25(15 - 35 [5 - 45])分钟(P < 0.001),INTRA组成功率为41/43(95.3%),SUBPARA组为25/40(62.5%)(P < 0.001)。两组在阻滞持续时间方面未发现差异。53例患者在术后5周还进行了电生理评估,结果显示动作电位幅度出现亚临床显著降低,但两组间无差异。6个月后无患者报告任何临床神经并发症。
在超声引导下腘部坐骨神经阻滞中,与神经旁注射相比,神经内注射起效更快且成功率更高。两种技术在术后5周均导致坐骨神经动作电位幅度出现类似的亚临床降低。这些发现不应推广至其他方法。