4.7 Article

A preliminary animal study on the prediction of nerve block success using ultrasonographic parameters

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-06986-y

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that SWVN and SWVNMR could be used as indicators for predicting nerve block success based on the diagnostic value of ultrasonographic parameters.
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of ultrasonographic parameters as an indicator for predicting regional nerve block success. Ultrasound-guided sciatic nerve block was performed in seven dogs using either 2% mepivacaine (nerve-block group) or saline (sham-block group). The cross-sectional area (CSA), nerve blood flow (NBF), and shear wave velocity (SWV) of the sciatic nerve (SWVN), SWV of the biceps femoris muscle (SWVM), and their ratio (SWVNMR) were measured at 0, 30, 60, and 90 min after the nerve block as well as the change rate of each parameter from the baseline. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the diagnostic value of each parameter in the prediction of nerve block success. No significant changes were observed in the CSA or NBF in association with the nerve block. The SWVN and SWVNMR in the nerve-block group were significantly higher than those in the sham-block group at 90 min and at 30, 60, and 90 min, respectively (p < 0.05). The change rates of SWVN and SWVNMR in the nerve-block group were significantly higher than those in the sham-block group at all time points (p < 0.05). The ROC curve analysis showed that SWVN had a moderate diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve [AUC], 0.779), whereas SWVNMR and change rates of SWVN and SWVNMR had a high diagnostic accuracy (AUC, 0.947, 0.998, and 1.000, respectively). Ultrasonographic evaluation of the SWVN and SWVNMR could be used as indicators for predicting nerve block success.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available