Comparison of Supraclavicular and Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block: A Systemic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

被引:36
|
作者
Park, Sun-Kyung [1 ]
Lee, Su-Young [1 ]
Kim, Won Ho [1 ]
Park, Han-Seul [1 ]
Lim, Young-Jin [1 ]
Bahk, Jae-Hyon [1 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol & Pain Med, 101 Daehak Ro, Seoul 03080, South Korea
关键词
ULTRASOUND GUIDANCE; ANESTHESIA;
D O I
10.1213/ANE.0000000000001713
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Supraclavicular (SC) and infraclavicular (IC) brachial plexus block (BPB) are commonly used for upper extremity surgery. Recent clinical studies have compared the effect of SC- and IC-BPB, but there have been controversies over spread of sensory blockade in each of the 4 peripheral nerve branches of brachial plexus. METHODS: This study included a systemic review, using the Medline and EMBASE database from their inceptions through March 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SC and IC-BPB were included. The prespecified primary outcome was the incidences, of incomplete sensory blockade in each of the 4 terminal nerve branches of brachial plexus. Secondary outcome included the incidence of successful blockade, performance time, onset of sensory block, duration of analgesia, and complication rates. RESULTS: Ten RCTs involving 676 patients were included. Pooled analyses showed the incidence of incomplete block at 30 minutes in radial nerve territory was significantly higher in IC-BPB, favoring SC-BPB (risk ratio 0.39; 95% confidence interval [0.17-0.88], P = .02, I-2 = 0%). However, subgroup analysis according to the number of injections of IC-BPB showed that double or triple injections IC-BPB yielded no difference in the incomplete radial block. Furthermore, the incidence of incomplete ulnar block at 30 minutes was significantly lower in IC-BPB when using double or triple injection IC-BPB. There was no difference in the secondary outcomes between SC- and IC-BPB groups, with the exception of complication rates. The incidence of paresthesia/pain on local anesthetic injection, phrenic nerve palsy, and Horner syndrome was significantly higher in the SC group, favoring IC-BPB. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that IC-BPB showed a significantly high incidence of incomplete radial nerve sensory block at 30 minutes, which may be avoided by double or triple injection. Furthermore, IC-BPB with multiple injection technique showed significantly lower incidence of incomplete ulnar block than SC-BPB. There were no differences in the incidence of successful blockade, block onset, and duration of analgesia between SC- and IC-BPB. Procedure-related paresthesia/pain and adjacent nerve-related complications were more frequent in SC-BPB. However, because of the small sample size, publication bias remains a concern when interpreting our results. Further studies with sufficient sample size and reporting large number of outcomes are required.
引用
收藏
页码:636 / 644
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A Randomized Comparison of Infraclavicular and Supraclavicular Continuous Peripheral Nerve Blocks for Postoperative Analgesia
    Mariano, Edward R.
    Sandhu, NavParkash S.
    Loland, Vanessa J.
    Bishop, Michael L.
    Madison, Sarah J.
    Abrams, Reid A.
    Meunier, Matthew J.
    Ferguson, Eliza J.
    Ilfeld, Brian M.
    REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE, 2011, 36 (01) : 26 - 31
  • [22] Levobupivacaine and Dexmedetomidine versus Ropivacaine and Dexmedetomidine for Ultrasound-guided Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block: A Randomised Controlled Trial
    Batool, Sofia
    Rai, Ram Bahadur
    Yougyal, Tsering
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2025, 19 (03) : UC26 - UC31
  • [23] Nerve Stimulator Evoked Motor Response Predicting a Successful Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block
    Haleem, Shahla
    Siddiqui, Ahsan K.
    Mowafi, Hany A.
    Ismail, Salah A.
    Ali, Qazi Ahsan
    ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2010, 110 (06) : 1745 - 1746
  • [24] Randomized comparison between ultrasound-guided proximal and distal approaches of intercostobrachial nerve block as an adjunct to supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper arm arteriovenous access procedures
    Samerchua, Artid
    Supphapipat, Kittitorn
    Leurcharusmee, Prangmalee
    Lapisatepun, Panuwat
    Thammasupapong, Pornpailin
    Lorsomradee, Sratwadee
    REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE, 2024,
  • [25] Efficacy of virtual reality distraction technique for anxiety and pain control in orthopedic forearm surgeries performed under supraclavicular brachial plexus block: A randomized controlled study
    Gamal, Medhat
    Rady, Ashraf
    Gamal, Mohamed
    Hassan, Haitham
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2023, 39 (01): : 468 - 476
  • [26] Increased success rate with infraclavicular brachial plexus block using a dual-injection technique
    Rodríguez, J
    Bárcena, M
    Lagunilla, J
    Alvarez, J
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 2004, 16 (04) : 251 - 256
  • [27] Preemptive analgosedation with ketamine-dexmedetomidine versus ketamine-propofol in upper limb surgeries under supraclavicular brachial plexus block: A randomized controlled trial
    Makwana, Mehul D.
    Pathak, Bhumika P.
    Panchal, Nirali Nimeshkumar
    Chaudhari, Madhavi Sanjay
    Phatak, Ajay Gajanan
    INDIAN ANAESTHETISTS FORUM, 2022, 23 (02) : 138 - 143
  • [28] Efficacy of axillary versus infraclavicular brachial plexus block in preventing tourniquet pain A randomised trial
    Brenner, David
    Iohom, Gabriella
    Mahon, Padraig
    Shorten, George
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2019, 36 (01) : 48 - 54
  • [29] SELECTIVE MUSCULOCUTANEOUS NERVE BLOCK AND INFRACLAVICULAR BRACHIAL-PLEXUS ANESTHESIA - CASE-REPORT
    FITZGIBBON, DR
    DEBS, AD
    ERJAVEC, MK
    REGIONAL ANESTHESIA, 1995, 20 (03) : 239 - 241
  • [30] A prospective randomized study to compare levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block for forearm orthopedic surgery
    Shahid, Razi
    Prasad, Mukesh Kumar
    Alam, Md Alauddin
    Jain, Payal
    Reddy, Macha Niranjan
    Jheetay, Gurdeep Singh
    ANAESTHESIA PAIN & INTENSIVE CARE, 2021, 25 (05) : 613 - 619