Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, PR China.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023 Apr 1;481(4):798-807. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002479. Epub 2022 Nov 18.
Variable innervation of the clavicle is a major challenge in surgery of clavicle fractures with patients under regional anesthesia. An interscalene block (ISB) combined with an intermediate cervical plexus block (ICPB) provides analgesia in clavicle fracture surgery, but this combination does not completely block sensation in the midshaft or medial clavicle. Cervical nerve root block is an alternative to deep cervical plexus block and has recently been used as an analgesic method in the neck and shoulder. Whether it should be used as an alternative for midshaft and medial clavicle fractures is unknown.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this randomized controlled trial, we compared a C3, 4, and 5 nerve root block to ISB combined with ICPB in surgery of midshaft and medial clavicle fractures in terms of the (1) proportion of patients achieving a sensory block that is sufficient for surgery, (2) onset time and duration of the block, and (3) effectiveness of postoperative analgesia, as measured by pain scores and consumption of analgesics.
Between November 2021 and December 2021, we treated 154 patients for clavicle fractures. A total of 122 were potentially eligible, 91 of whom agreed to participate in this study. Twenty-nine patients were excluded because the patients chose general anesthesia or declined to undergo surgery. Ultimately, 62 patients were randomly allocated into the C3, 4, and 5 group or ISB + ICPB group, with 31 patients in each group; there were no dropouts. All patients were analyzed in the group they were randomized to under intention-to-treat principles. The assessor and patients were blinded to randomization throughout the trial. The two groups did not differ in any important ways, including age, gender, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and type of clavicle fracture. The two groups received either an ultrasound-guided C3, 4, and 5 nerve root block with 2, 3, and 5 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine or ultrasound-guided ISB with ICPB with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each group with a successful nerveba block who did not receive general anesthesia; this was defined as nerve block success. Secondary outcomes included the onset time and duration of the sensory block, defined as the onset to the moment when the patients felt pain and sought rescue analgesia; pain assessment in terms of the numeric rating scale (NRS) score (range 0 to 10) for pain after nerve block before and during surgery; and the median amount of sufentanil consumed intraoperatively and postoperatively in the recovery room. The dosing of sufentanil was determined by the assessor when the NRS score was 1 to 3 points. If the NRS score was more than 3 points, general anesthesia was administered as a rescue method. Complications after the two inventions such as toxic reaction, dyspnea, hoarseness, pneumothorax, and Horner syndrome were also recorded in this study.
A higher proportion of patients in the C3, 4, and 5 group had a successful nerve block than in the ISB + ICPB group (97% [30 of 31] versus 68% [21 of 31], risk ratio 6 [95% CI 1.5 to 37]; p < 0.01). The median onset time was 2.5 minutes (range 2.0 to 3.0 minutes) in the C3, 4, and 5 group and 12 minutes (range 9 to 16 minutes) in the ISB + ICPB group (difference of medians 10 minutes; p < 0.001). The sensory block duration was 10 ± 2 hours in the C3, 4, and 5 group and 8 ± 2 hours in the ISB + ICPB group (mean difference 2 hours [95% CI 1 to 3 hours]; p < 0.001). The median sufentanil consumption was lower in the C3, 4, 5 group than in the ISB + ICPB (median 5 µg [range 0.0 to 5.0 µg] versus median 0 µg [range 0.0 to 0.0 µg]; difference of medians 5.0 µg; p < 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups regarding NRS scores after nerve blocks and NRS score for incision and periosteum separation, with the minimum clinically important difference set at a 2-point difference (of 10). There were no severe complications in this study.
Based on our analysis of the data, a C3, 4, and 5 nerve root block was better than ISB combined with ICPB for surgery to treat medial shaft and medial clavicle fractures. When choosing the anesthesia method, however, the patient's basic physiologic condition and possible complications should be considered.
Level I, therapeutic study.
锁骨的神经支配存在变异性,这对接受区域麻醉的锁骨骨折患者的手术治疗是一个重大挑战。肌间沟阻滞(ISB)联合颈浅丛阻滞(ICPB)可提供锁骨骨折手术的镇痛效果,但这种联合阻滞并不能完全阻断锁骨中段或内侧的感觉。颈椎神经根阻滞是颈深丛阻滞的替代方法,最近已被用于颈部和肩部的镇痛。但尚不清楚它是否可作为锁骨中段和内侧骨折的替代方法。
问题/目的:在这项随机对照试验中,我们比较了 C3、4 和 5 神经根阻滞与 ISB 联合 ICPB 在锁骨中段和内侧骨折手术中的效果,比较的内容包括(1)达到足以进行手术的感觉阻滞的患者比例;(2)阻滞的起效时间和持续时间;(3)通过疼痛评分和镇痛药消耗来衡量的术后镇痛效果。
2021 年 11 月至 2021 年 12 月,我们对 154 例锁骨骨折患者进行了治疗。共有 122 例潜在符合条件,其中 91 例同意参加本研究。29 例患者因选择全身麻醉或拒绝手术而被排除。最终,62 例患者被随机分为 C3、4 和 5 神经根阻滞组或 ISB + ICPB 组,每组 31 例;没有脱落病例。所有患者均根据意向治疗原则在他们被随机分配的组中进行分析。在整个试验过程中,评估者和患者均对随机分组情况不知情。两组在年龄、性别、BMI、美国麻醉医师协会分类和锁骨骨折类型等方面均无重要差异。两组均接受超声引导下 C3、4 和 5 神经根阻滞,每侧各 2、3 和 5 mL 0.5%罗哌卡因,或超声引导下 ISB 联合 ICPB,每侧各 20 mL 0.5%罗哌卡因。主要结局是评估两组中未接受全身麻醉的成功神经阻滞患者的比例;这被定义为神经阻滞成功。次要结局包括感觉阻滞的起效时间和持续时间,定义为患者感到疼痛并寻求补救性镇痛的时间;神经阻滞前后手术期间的疼痛评估,采用数字评分量表(NRS)评分(范围 0 到 10);以及术中及术后恢复室中舒芬太尼的中位数消耗量。当 NRS 评分为 1 到 3 分时,评估者会根据 NRS 评分确定舒芬太尼的剂量。如果 NRS 评分大于 3 分,则给予全身麻醉作为补救方法。本研究还记录了两种方法后出现的并发症,如中毒反应、呼吸困难、声音嘶哑、气胸和霍纳综合征。
C3、4 和 5 神经根阻滞组的神经阻滞成功率高于 ISB + ICPB 组(97% [30/31] 与 68% [21/31],风险比 6 [95%CI 1.5 到 37];p < 0.01)。C3、4 和 5 神经根阻滞组的中位起效时间为 2.5 分钟(范围 2.0 到 3.0 分钟),ISB + ICPB 组为 12 分钟(范围 9 到 16 分钟)(中位数差异 10 分钟;p < 0.001)。C3、4 和 5 神经根阻滞组的感觉阻滞持续时间为 10 ± 2 小时,ISB + ICPB 组为 8 ± 2 小时(平均差异 2 小时[95%CI 1 到 3 小时];p < 0.001)。C3、4 和 5 神经根阻滞组舒芬太尼的中位消耗量低于 ISB + ICPB 组(中位数 5 µg [范围 0.0 到 5.0 µg] 与中位数 0 µg [范围 0.0 到 0.0 µg];中位数差异 5.0 µg;p < 0.001)。两组神经阻滞后 NRS 评分和切口及骨膜分离时的 NRS 评分无差异,设定最小临床差异为 2 分。本研究中无严重并发症。
根据我们对数据的分析,C3、4 和 5 神经根阻滞在治疗内侧骨干和内侧锁骨骨折方面优于 ISB 联合 ICPB。然而,在选择麻醉方法时,应考虑患者的基本生理状况和可能出现的并发症。
一级,治疗性研究。