Postoperative analgesia with continuous sciatic nerve block after foot surgery: a prospective, randomized comparison between the popliteal and subgluteal approaches

被引:38
作者
di Benedetto, P
Casati, A
Bertini, L
Fanelli, G
Chelly, JE
机构
[1] Vita & Salute Univ, Hosp San Raffaele, IRCCS, Dept Anesthesiol, I-20132 Milan, Italy
[2] CTO Roma, Dept Anesthesiol, Rome, Italy
[3] Univ Texas, Sch Med, Dept Anesthesiol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/00000539-200204000-00041
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
To compare the posterior popliteal and subgluteal continuous sciatic nerve block for anesthesia and acute postoperative pain management after foot surgery, 60 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing elective orthopedic foot surgery were randomly assigned to either a Subgluteal group (n = 30) or Popliteal group (n = 30). Before surgery and after performing a femoral nerve block with 15 mL of 2% mepivacaine, we performed the sciatic nerveblock with 20 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine using either a subgluteal or posterior popliteal approach, and the placement of a catheter came afterward. In the recovery room, the catheter was connected to a patient-controlled analgesia pump to infuse 0.2% ropivacaine (basal infusion rate of 5 mL/h, incremental bolus of 10 mL, and a lockout time of 60 min). There were no technical problems in catheter placement. Intraoperative efficacy of nerve block was similar in the two groups. Postoperative catheter displacement and occlusion were recorded in four patients in the Popliteal group and two patients in the Subgluteal group (P = 0.677). Both approaches provided similar postoperative analgesia. We conclude that the subgluteal approach is as effective and safe as the previously described posterior popliteal approach for continuous sciatic block and can be considered a useful alternative to anesthesia and acute postoperative analgesia after foot procedures.
引用
收藏
页码:996 / 1000
页数:5
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] Patient-controlled analgesia after major shoulder surgery - Patient-controlled interscalene analgesia versus patient-controlled analgesia
    Borgeat, A
    Schappi, B
    Biasca, N
    Gerber, C
    [J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1997, 87 (06) : 1343 - 1347
  • [2] Ropivacaine or 2% mepivacaine for lower limb peripheral nerve blocks
    Casati, A
    Fanelli, G
    Borghi, B
    Torri, G
    [J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1999, 90 (04) : 1047 - 1052
  • [3] CASATI A, 2001, CONTINUOUS PERIPHERA, P67
  • [4] A new anterior approach to the sciatic nerve block
    Chelly, JE
    Delaunay, L
    [J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1999, 91 (06) : 1655 - 1660
  • [5] What is the relationship between paresthesia and nerve stimulation for axillary brachial plexus block?
    Choyce, A
    Chan, VWS
    Middleton, WJ
    Knight, PR
    Peng, P
    McCartney, CJL
    [J]. REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE, 2001, 26 (02) : 100 - 104
  • [6] 100 SCIATIC-NERVE BLOCKS - A COMPARISON OF LOCALIZATION TECHNIQUES
    DAVIES, MJ
    MCGLADE, DP
    [J]. ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, 1993, 21 (01) : 76 - 78
  • [7] A new posterior approach to the sciatic nerve block: A prospective, randomized comparison with the classic posterior approach
    de Benedetto, P
    Bertini, L
    Casati, A
    Borghi, B
    Albertin, A
    Fanelli, G
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2001, 93 (04) : 1040 - 1044
  • [8] A double-blind comparison of ropivacaine, bupivacaine, and mepivacaine during sciatic and femoral nerve blockade
    Fanelli, G
    Casati, A
    Beccaria, P
    Aldegheri, G
    Berti, M
    Tarantino, F
    Torri, G
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1998, 87 (03) : 597 - 600
  • [9] Modified continuous femoral three-in-one block for postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty
    Ganapathy, S
    Wasserman, RA
    Watson, JT
    Bennett, J
    Armstrong, KP
    Stockall, CA
    Chess, DG
    MacDonald, C
    [J]. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1999, 89 (05) : 1197 - 1202
  • [10] Popliteal fossa neural blockade as the sole anesthetic technique for outpatient foot and ankle surgery
    Hansen, E
    Eshelman, MR
    Cracchiolo, A
    [J]. FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2000, 21 (01) : 38 - 44