4.6 Article

Using stimulating catheters for continuous sciatic nerve block shortens onset time of surgical block and minimizes postoperative consumption of pain medication after halux valgus repair as compared with conventional nonstimulating catheters

期刊

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
卷 101, 期 4, 页码 1192-1197

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000167232.10305.cd

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We prospectively tested the hypothesis that the use of a stimulating catheter improves the efficacy of continuous posterior popliteal sciatic nerve block in 100 randomized patients scheduled for elective orthopedic foot surgery. After eliciting a sciatic mediated muscular twitch at <= 0.5 mA nerve stimulation output, the perineural catheter was advanced 2-4 cm beyond the tip of the introducer either blindly (Group C; n = 50) or stimulating via the catheter (Group S; n = 50). A bolus dose of 25 ml, of 1.5% mepivacaine was followed by a postoperative patient-controlled infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine (basal infusion: 3 mL/h; incremental dose: 5 mL; lockout time: 30 min). Propacetamol 2 g IV was administered every 8 h, and opioid rescue analgesia was available if required. Catheter placement required 7 2 min in Group S and 5 2 min in Group C (P = 0.056). A significantly shorter onset time of both sensory and motor blocks was noted in Group S. No difference in quality of pain relief at rest and during motion was reported between the groups. Median (range) local anesthetic consumption during the first 48 h after surgery was 239 mL (175-519 mL) and 322 mL (184-508 mL) in Groups S and C, respectively (P = 0.002). Rescue opioid analgesia was required by 12 (25%) and 28 (58%) patients in Groups S and C, respectively (P = 0.002). We conclude that the use of a stimulating catheter results in shorter onset time of posterior popliteal sciatic nerve block, similar pain relief with reduced postoperative consumption of local anesthetic solution, and less rescue opioid consumption.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据