Nijs Kristof, Hertogen Pieter 's, Buelens Simon, Coppens Marc, Teunkens An, Jalil Hassanin, Van de Velde Marc, Al Tmimi Layth, Stessel Björn
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Jessa Hospital, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium.
Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Hasselt, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.
J Clin Med. 2024 May 29;13(11):3185. doi: 10.3390/jcm13113185.
Several regional anesthesia (RA) techniques have been described for distal upper limb surgery. However, the best approach in terms of RA block success rate and safety is not well recognized. To assess and compare the surgical anesthesia and efficacy of axillary brachial plexus block with other RA techniques for hand and wrist surgery. The attainment of adequate surgical anesthesia 30 min after block placement was considered a primary outcome measure. Additionally, successful block outcomes were required without the use of supplemental local anesthetic injection, systemic opioid analgesia, or the need to convert to general anesthesia. We performed a systematic search in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CENTRAL. RCTs comparing axillary blocks with other brachial plexus block techniques, distal peripheral forearm nerve block, intravenous RA, and the wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) technique were included. In total, 3070 records were reviewed, of which 28 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of adequate surgical anesthesia showed no significant difference between ultrasound-guided axillary block and supraclavicular block (RR: 0.94 [0.89, 1.00]; = 0.06; I = 60.00%), but a statistically significant difference between ultrasound-guided axillary block and infraclavicular block (RR: 0.92 [0.88, 0.97]; < 0.01; I = 53.00%). Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular blocks were performed faster than ultrasound-guided axillary blocks (SMD: 0.74 [0.30, 1.17]; < 0.001; I = 85.00%). No differences in performance time between ultrasound-guided axillary and supraclavicular blocks were demonstrated. Additionally, adequate surgical anesthesia onset time was not significantly different between ultrasound-guided block approaches: ultrasound-guided axillary blocks versus ultrasound-guided supraclavicular blocks (SMD: 0.52 [-0.14, 1.17]; = 0.12; I = 86.00%); ultrasound-guided axillary blocks versus ultrasound-guided infraclavicular blocks (SMD: 0.21 [-0.49, 0.91]; = 0.55; I = 92.00%). The RA choice should be individualized depending on the patient, procedure, and operator-specific parameters. Compared to ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular block, ultrasound-guided axillary block may be preferred for patients with significant concerns of block-related side effects/complications. High heterogeneity between studies shows the need for more robust RCTs.
已有多种区域麻醉(RA)技术用于上肢远端手术。然而,就RA阻滞成功率和安全性而言,最佳方法尚未得到充分认可。为评估和比较腋路臂丛神经阻滞与其他RA技术用于手部和腕部手术的麻醉效果及有效性。将阻滞后30分钟达到充分手术麻醉作为主要观察指标。此外,要求在不使用补充局部麻醉注射、全身阿片类镇痛或无需转为全身麻醉的情况下获得成功的阻滞效果。我们在以下数据库进行了系统检索:医学文献数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、Cochrane系统评价数据库和循证医学图书馆(CENTRAL)。纳入比较腋路阻滞与其他臂丛神经阻滞技术、前臂远端周围神经阻滞、静脉RA以及清醒局部麻醉无止血带(WALANT)技术的随机对照试验(RCT)。共检索到3070条记录,其中28条符合纳入标准。充分手术麻醉的荟萃分析显示,超声引导下腋路阻滞与锁骨上阻滞之间无显著差异(风险比:0.94 [0.89, 1.00];P = 0.06;I² = 60.00%),但超声引导下腋路阻滞与锁骨下阻滞之间存在统计学显著差异(风险比:0.92 [0.88, 0.97];P < 0.01;I² = 53.00%)。超声引导下锁骨下阻滞的操作速度比超声引导下腋路阻滞快(标准化均数差:0.74 [0.30, 1.17];P < 0.001;I² = 85.00%)。未显示超声引导下腋路阻滞与锁骨上阻滞在操作时间上有差异。此外,超声引导下不同阻滞方法之间的充分手术麻醉起效时间无显著差异:超声引导下腋路阻滞与超声引导下锁骨上阻滞(标准化均数差:0.52 [-0.14, 1.17];P = 0.12;I² = 86.00%);超声引导下腋路阻滞与超声引导下锁骨下阻滞(标准化均数差:0.21 [-0.49, 0.91];P = 0.55;I² = 92.00%)。RA的选择应根据患者、手术和操作者的具体参数进行个体化。与超声引导下锁骨上和锁骨下阻滞相比,对于严重担心阻滞相关副作用/并发症的患者,超声引导下腋路阻滞可能更受青睐。研究之间的高度异质性表明需要更有力的RCT。