open access

Vol 51, No 1 (2019)
Original and clinical articles
Published online: 2019-03-04
Submitted: 2018-03-05
Accepted: 2019-01-07
Get Citation

Supraclavicular block vs. intravenous regional anaesthesia for forearm surgery

Tomoki Nishiyama
DOI: 10.5603/AIT.a2019.0005
·
Pubmed: 30828781
·
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2019;51(1):17-20.

open access

Vol 51, No 1 (2019)
Original and clinical articles
Published online: 2019-03-04
Submitted: 2018-03-05
Accepted: 2019-01-07

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic effect between intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) and supraclavicular block in forearm surgery. Methods: Eighty patients aged 30 to 70 years for forearm surgery were divided into Supraclavicular group and IVRA group. Supraclavicular block was performed with 1% lidocaine 20 mL. After analgesia was obtained, single tourniquet was used at 200 mmHg. For patients in the IVRA group, an intravenous catheter was inserted in the dorsum of the hand of surgery, double tourniquet was placed, an elastic bandage was wound up, then 1% lidocaine 20 mL was injected after proximal tourniquet was inflated at 200 mmHg. When analgesia did not occur in 30 minutes, the block was judged as a failure, and general anesthesia was administered. The onset time of analgesia, time to the first tourniquet pain, and duration of postoperative analgesia were measured. When patients felt pain at surgical site during surgery, fentanyl 50 μg was administered. Side effects were also checked. Results: Onset time, duration of postoperative analgesia, and time to the tourniquet pain were significantly shorter in the IRVA group. Number of patients with tourniquet pain was significantly larger and number of patients with additional fentanyl was significantly smaller in the IRVA group. No patients showed any side effects. Conclusion: IVRA had shorter onset time and needed less additional anesthetics during surgery, but induced more tourniquet pain and shorter duration of postoperative analgesia than supraclavicular block when 1% lidocaine 20 mL was used for forearm surgery.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic effect between intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) and supraclavicular block in forearm surgery. Methods: Eighty patients aged 30 to 70 years for forearm surgery were divided into Supraclavicular group and IVRA group. Supraclavicular block was performed with 1% lidocaine 20 mL. After analgesia was obtained, single tourniquet was used at 200 mmHg. For patients in the IVRA group, an intravenous catheter was inserted in the dorsum of the hand of surgery, double tourniquet was placed, an elastic bandage was wound up, then 1% lidocaine 20 mL was injected after proximal tourniquet was inflated at 200 mmHg. When analgesia did not occur in 30 minutes, the block was judged as a failure, and general anesthesia was administered. The onset time of analgesia, time to the first tourniquet pain, and duration of postoperative analgesia were measured. When patients felt pain at surgical site during surgery, fentanyl 50 μg was administered. Side effects were also checked. Results: Onset time, duration of postoperative analgesia, and time to the tourniquet pain were significantly shorter in the IRVA group. Number of patients with tourniquet pain was significantly larger and number of patients with additional fentanyl was significantly smaller in the IRVA group. No patients showed any side effects. Conclusion: IVRA had shorter onset time and needed less additional anesthetics during surgery, but induced more tourniquet pain and shorter duration of postoperative analgesia than supraclavicular block when 1% lidocaine 20 mL was used for forearm surgery.
Get Citation

Keywords

surgery, orthopaedic; forearm surgery; anaesthesia, intravenous regional anaesthesia; anaesthesia, regional, supraclavicular block

About this article
Title

Supraclavicular block vs. intravenous regional anaesthesia for forearm surgery

Journal

Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy

Issue

Vol 51, No 1 (2019)

Pages

17-20

Published online

2019-03-04

DOI

10.5603/AIT.a2019.0005

Pubmed

30828781

Bibliographic record

Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2019;51(1):17-20.

Keywords

surgery
orthopaedic
forearm surgery
anaesthesia
intravenous regional anaesthesia
anaesthesia
regional
supraclavicular block

Authors

Tomoki Nishiyama

References (19)
  1. Fredrickson MJ, Patel A, Young S, et al. Speed of onset of 'corner pocket supraclavicular' and infraclavicular ultrasound guided brachial plexus block: a randomised observer-blinded comparison. Anaesthesia. 2009; 64(7): 738–744.
  2. Bharti N, Bhardawaj N, Wig J. Comparison of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular, infraclavicular and below-C6 interscalene brachial plexus block for upper limb surgery: a randomised, observer-blinded study. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2015; 43(4): 468–472.
  3. Koscielniak-Nielsen ZJ, Frederiksen BS, Rasmussen H, et al. A comparison of ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular blocks for upper extremity surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009; 53(5): 620–626.
  4. Tran DeQ, Russo G, Muñoz L, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison between ultrasound-guided supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary brachial plexus blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009; 34(4): 366–371.
  5. Sivrikaya Z, Turan G, Cetiner R, et al. Comparison of RIVA and infraclavicular block in forearm and hand surgery. North Clin Istanb. 2017; 4(2): 131–140.
  6. Narang S, Dali JS, Agarwal M, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of magnesium sulphate as an adjuvant to lignocaine for intravenous regional anaesthesia for upper limb surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2008; 36(6): 840–844.
  7. Eapen S, Ahluwalia CS, Chopra V, et al. Intravenous regional anesthesia as an anesthetic technique for a patient with ventricular bigeminy. Ann Card Anaesth. 2015; 18(2): 267–268.
  8. Techasuk W, González AP, Bernucci F, et al. A randomized comparison between double-injection and targeted intracluster-injection ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block. Anesth Analg. 2014; 118(6): 1363–1369.
  9. Tran DeQH, Dugani S, Correa JA, et al. Minimum effective volume of lidocaine for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011; 36(5): 466–469.
  10. Nadeau MJ, Lévesque S, Dion N. Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia for upper limb surgery. Can J Anaesth. 2013; 60(3): 304–320.
  11. Atanassoff PG, Aouad R, Hartmannsgruber MWB, et al. Levobupivacaine 0.125% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2002; 97(2): 325–328.
  12. Ulus A, Gürses E, Öztürk I, et al. Comparative evaluation of two different volumes of lidocaine in intravenous regional anesthesia. Med Sci Monit. 2013; 19: 978–983.
  13. Hartmannsgruber MW, Silverman DG, Halaszynski TM, et al. Comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers. Anesth Analg. 1999; 89(3): 727–731.
  14. Song JH, Shim HY, Lee TJ, et al. Comparison of dexmedetomidine and epinephrine as an adjuvant to 1% mepivacaine in brachial plexus block. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014; 66(4): 283–289.
  15. Rosenberg PH. 1992 ASRA Lecture. Intravenous regional anesthesia: nerve block by multiple mechanisms. Reg Anesth. 1993; 18(1): 1–5.
  16. Rosenberg PH, Heavner JE. Temperature-dependent nerve-blocking action of lidocaine and halothane. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1980; 24(4): 314–320.
  17. Rosenberg PH, Heavner JE. Multiple and complementary mechanisms produce analgesia during intravenous regional anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1985; 62(6): 840–842.
  18. Chan VW, Peng PW, Kaszas Z, et al. A comparative study of general anesthesia, intravenous regional anesthesia, and axillary block for outpatient hand surgery: clinical outcome and cost analysis. Anesth Analg. 2001; 93(5): 1181–1184.
  19. Estebe JP, Le Naoures A, Chemaly L, et al. Tourniquet pain in a volunteer study: effect of changes in cuff width and pressure. Anaesthesia. 2000; 55(1): 21–26.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

VM Media sp. z o.o. VM Group sp.k., Grupa Via Medica, Świętokrzyska 73 St., 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl