JUM Parker Laboratories, Inc
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mariano, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ilfeld, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mariano, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ilfeld, B. M.
© 2009 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
J Ultrasound Med 28:1211-1218 • 0278-4297

Ultrasound Guidance Versus Electrical Stimulation for Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Perineural Catheter Insertion

Edward R. Mariano, MD, MAS, Vanessa J. Loland, MD, Richard H. Bellars, MD, NavParkash S. Sandhu, MD, Michael L. Bishop, MD, Reid A. Abrams, MD, Matthew J. Meunier, MD, Rosalita C. Maldonado, BS, Eliza J. Ferguson, BS and Brian M. Ilfeld, MD, MS

Departments of Anesthesiology (E.R.M., V.J.L., R.H.B., N.S.S., M.L.B., E.J.F., R.C.M., B.M.I.) and Orthopedic Surgery (R.A.A., M.J.M.), University of California, San Diego, California USA.

Address correspondence to Edward R. Mariano, MD, MAS, Department of Anesthesiology, University of California, 200 W Arbor Dr, San Diego, CA 92103-8770 USA. E-mail: ermariano{at}ucsd.edu

Objective. Electrical stimulation (ES)- and ultrasound-guided placement techniques have been described for infraclavicular brachial plexus perineural catheters but to our knowledge have never been previously compared in a randomized fashion, leaving the optimal method undetermined. We tested the hypothesis that infraclavicular catheters placed via ultrasound guidance alone require less time for placement and produce equivalent results compared with catheters placed solely via ES. Methods. Preoperatively, patients receiving an infraclavicular perineural catheter for distal upper extremity surgery were randomly assigned to either ES with a stimulating catheter or ultrasound guidance with a nonstimulating catheter. The primary outcome was the catheter insertion duration (minutes) starting when the ultrasound transducer (ultrasound group) or catheter placement needle (stimulation group) first touched the patient and ending when the catheter placement needle was removed after catheter insertion. Results. Perineural catheters placed with ultrasound guidance took a median (10th–90th percentile) of 9.0 (6.0–13.2) minutes compared with 15.0 (4.9–30.0) minutes for stimulation (P < .01). All ultrasound-guided catheters were successfully placed according to the protocol (n = 20) versus 70% in the stimulation group (n = 20; P < .01). All ultrasound-guided catheters resulted in a successful surgical block, whereas 2 catheters placed by stimulation failed to result in surgical anesthesia. Six catheters (30%) placed via stimulation resulted in vascular punctures compared with none in the ultrasound group (P < .01). Procedure-related pain scores were similar between groups (P = .34). Conclusions. Placement of infraclavicular perineural catheters takes less time, is more often successful, and results in fewer inadvertent vascular punctures when using ultrasound guidance compared with ES.

Key Words: continuous infraclavicular nerve block • electrical stimulation • perineural infusion • ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia

Abbreviations: ES, electrical stimulation

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.