4.6 Article

Dislocation rates of perineural catheters: a volunteer study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
Volume 111, Issue 5, Pages 800-806

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet198

Keywords

anaesthetic techniques; regional; brachial plexus; anaesthetic techniques; regional; lumbar plexus; monitoring; ultrasound

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dislocation rates of continuous peripheral nerve block are poorly described even though this technique is frequently used in clinical practice. The present study was designed to evaluate dislocation rates over time of interscalene and femoral nerve catheters under defined experimental circumstances. Ultrasound (US) monitoring was used to detect the position of the perineural catheters. Twenty volunteers received US-guided interscalene and femoral nerve catheters. The volunteers performed standardized physical exercises in regular intervals and the position of both catheters was examined by US confirmation of the spread of fluid. The maximal time of investigation in each volunteer was 6 h. The main outcome parameters were the overall dislocation rates and the cumulative dislocation rates at a given time point. We observed an overall dislocation rate of 15 (5 for interscalene catheters, 25 for femoral nerve catheters) and a significant correlation between time and rate of dislocations (r0.99, P0.001). US visualization of the spread of fluid was possible in all cases. This is the first dedicated evaluation of dislocation rates of peripheral nerve catheters (PNCs) via US investigation. Both movement and time are considerable factors for perineural catheter displacement. US is useful for the performance of PNCs and for the continuous detection of the spread of fluid relative to the nerve and adjacent anatomical structures. Translational research is required to confirm the study results in the clinical practice. DRKS00003494.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available