CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Résumé de cet Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 Tran, D. Q.H.
Right arrow Articles by Finlayson, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tran, D. Q.H.
Right arrow Articles by Finlayson, R. J.
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 55:447-457 (2008)
© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, 2008

Review Article/Brief Review

Ultrasonography and stimulating perineural catheters for nerve blocks: a review of the evidence

[L’échographie et les cathéters périneuraux stimulants pour les blocs nerveux : une synthèse des données probantes]

De Q.H. Tran, MD FRCPC, Loreto Muñoz, MD, Gianluca Russo, MD and Roderick J. Finlayson, MD FRCPC

From the Department of Anesthesia, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Address correspondence to: Dr. De Q.H. Tran, Montreal General Hospital, Department of Anesthesia, 1650 Ave Cedar, D10-144, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1A4, Canada. Phone: 514-934-1934 ext. 43261; Fax: 514-934-4289; E-mail: de_tran{at}hotmail.com

Purpose: This narrative review summarizes the evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) offering blinded assessment and sample size justification, in order to determine the benefits associated with adjunctive ultrasonography (US) and stimulating perineural catheters for nerve blocks.

Source: The literature search for this review was conducted during the second week of December 2007 using the MEDLINE (January 1950 to November 2007) and EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2007) databases. For US-guided peripheral and neuraxial blocks, the following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms were searched: "nerve block", "epidural anesthesia", "epidural analgesia", "epidural injection", "epidural space", "spinal anesthesia", and "spinal injection", the results were combined with "ultrasonography" (MeSH term) and "ultrasound" (key word). For stimulating perineural catheters, the following MeSH terms were cross referenced with the MeSH term, "nerve block": "peripheral catheterization", "indwelling catheterization", "catheterization", and keywords, "nerve catheter" and "continuous". Subsequently, the result of this search was combined to "stimulating" (key word). Fifteen RCTs, offering blinded assessment and sample size justification, were retained for analysis.

Principal findings: For axillary blocks, US guidance yields a higher success rate than a double-injection, transarterial and a triple-injection, neurostimulation-guided technique. Compared to a quadruple-stimulation technique, no major differences can be found. The addition of nerve stimulation to US guidance offers no clear benefits for axillary blocks. For femoral blocks, compared to neurostimulation, echoguidance is associated with a local anesthetic (LA) sparing effect (up to 42%). In children, US guidance yields a LA sparing effect and a longer duration of action for lower extremity nerve blocks.

Compared to their blind counterparts, stimulating catheters seem to offer limited clinical benefits. Despite providing a sparing effect on LA and opioid consumption, stimulating catheters are not associated with a decrease in side effects or analgesia-related expenditures.

Conclusions: Published reports of RCTs provide evidence to formulate limited recommendations regarding the use of adjunctive US and stimulating perineural catheters. Further well-designed and meticulously executed RCTs are warranted.

1 Soeding PE, Sha S, Royse CE, Marks P, Hoy G, Royse AG. A randomized trial of ultrasound-guided brachial plexus anaesthesia in upper limb surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 2005; 33: 719–25.[Medline]

2 Williams SR, Chouinard P, Arcand G, et al. Ultrasound guidance speeds execution and improves the quality of supraclavicular block. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 1518–23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3 Marhofer P, Sitzwohl C, Greher M, Kapral S. Ultrasound guidance for infraclavicular brachial plexus anesthesia in children. Anaesthesia 2004; 59: 642–6.[Medline]

4 Marhofer P, Schrogendorfer K, Koinig H, Kapral S, Weinstabl C, Mayer N. Ultrasonographic guidance improves sensory block and onset time of three-in-one blocks. Anesth Analg 1997; 85: 854–7.[Abstract]

5 Marhofer P, Schrogendorfer K, Wallner T, Koinig H, Mayer N, Kapral S. Ultrasonographic guidance reduces the amount of local anesthetics for 3-in-1 blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1998; 23: 584–8.[Medline]

6 Willschke H, Marhofer P, Bosenberg A, et al. Ultrasonography for ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in children. Br J Anaesth 2005; 95: 226–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

7 Hannan L, Reader A, Nist R, Beck M, Meyers WJ. The use of ultrasound for guiding needle placement for inferior alveolar nerve blocks. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 87: 658–65.[Medline]

8 Grau T, Leipold RW, Conradi R, Martin E, Motsch J. Ultrasound imaging facilitates localization of the epidural space during combined spinal and epidural anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001; 26: 64–7.[Medline]

9 Grau T, Leipold RW, Conradi R, Martin E, Motsch J. Efficacy of ultrasound imaging in obstetric epidural anesthesia. J Clin Anesth 2002; 14: 169–75.[Medline]

10 Grau T, Leipold RW, Conradi R, Martin E. Ultrasound control for presumed difficult epidural puncture. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001; 45: 766–71.[Medline]

11 Grau T, Leipold RW, Fatehi S, Martin E, Motsch J. Real-time ultrasonic observation of combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2004; 21: 25–31.[Medline]

12 Willschke H, Marhofer P, Bosenberg A, et al. Epidural catheter placement in children: comparing a novel approach using ultrasound guidance and a standard loss-of-resistance technique. Br J Anaesth 2006; 97: 200–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13 Birnbaum J, Kip M, Spies CD, et al. The effect of stimulating versus nonstimulating catheters for continuous interscalene plexus blocks in short-term pain management. J Clin Anesth 2007; 19: 434–39.[Medline]

14 Liu FC, Liou JT, Tsai YF, et al. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block: a comparative study with nerve stimulator-guided method. Chang Gung Med J 2005; 28: 396–402.[Medline]

15 Sites BD, Beach ML, Spence BC, et al. Ultrasound guidance improves the success rate of a perivascular axillary plexus block. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006; 50: 678–84.[Medline]

16 Tran DQ, Clemente A, Doan J, Finlayson RJ. Brachial plexus blocks: a review of approaches and techniques. Can J Anesth 2007; 54: 662–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

17 Chan VW, Perlas A, McCartney CJ, Brull R, Xu D, Abbas S. Ultrasound guidance improves success rate of axillary brachial plexus block. Can J Anesth 2007; 54: 176–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

18 Casati A, Danelli G, Baciarello M, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison between ultrasound and nerve stimulation guidance for multiple injection axillary brachial plexus block. Anesthesiology 2007; 106: 992–6.[Medline]

19 Casati A, Baciarello M, Di Cianni S, et al. Effects of ultrasound guidance on the minimum effective anaesthetic volume required to block the femoral nerve. Br J Anaesth 2007; 98: 823–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

20 Domingo-Triado V, Selfa S, Martinez F, et al. Ultrasound guidance for lateral midfemoral sciatic nerve block: a prospective, comparative, randomized study. Anesth Analg 2007; 104: 1270–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

21 Pianezza A, Gilbert ML, Minville V, et al. A modified mid-femoral approach to the sciatic nerve block: a correlation between evoked motor response and sensory block. Anesth Analg 2007; 105: 528–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

22 Oberndorfer U, Marhofer P, Bosenberg A, et al. Ultrasonographic guidance for sciatic and femoral nerve blocks in children. Br J Anaesth 2007; 98: 797–801.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

23 Stevens MF, Werdehausen R, Golla E, et al. Does inter-scalene catheter placement with stimulating catheters improve postoperative pain or functional outcome after shoulder surgery? A prospective, randomized and double-blinded trial. Anesth Analg 2007; 104: 442–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

24 Salinas FV, Neal JM, Sueda LA, Kopacz DJ, Liu SS. Prospective comparison of continuous femoral nerve block with nonstimulating catheter placement versus stimulating catheter-guided perineural placement in volunteers. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2004; 29: 212–20.[Medline]

25 Hayek SM, Ritchey RM, Sessler D, et al. Continuous femoral nerve analgesia after unilateral total knee arthroplasty: stimulating versus nonstimulating catheters. Anesth Analg 2006; 103: 1565–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

26 Dauri M, Sidiropoulou T, Fabbi E, et al. Efficacy of continuous femoral nerve block with stimulating catheters versus nonstimulating catheters for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007; 32: 282–7.[Medline]

27 Morin AM, Eberhart LHJ, Behnke HK, et al. Does femoral nerve catheter placement with stimulating catheters improve effective placement? A randomized, controlled, and observer-blinded trial. Anesth Analg 2005; 100: 1503–10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

28 Casati A, Fanelli G, Koscielniak-Nielsen Z, et al. 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. Anesth Analg 2005; 101: 1192–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

29 Casati A, Fanelli G, Danelli G, et al. Stimulating or conventional perineural catheters after hallux valgus repair: a double-blind, pharmacoeconomic evaluation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006; 50: 1284–9.[Medline]

30 Rodriguez J, Taboada M, Carceller J, Lagunilla J, Barcena M, Alvarez J. Stimulating popliteal catheters for postoperative analgesia after hallux valgus repair. Anesth Analg 2006; 102: 258–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

31 Klein SM, Grant SA, Greengrass RA, et al. Interscalene brachial plexus block with a continuous catheter insertion system and a disposable infusion pump. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 1473–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

32 Ilfeld BM, Morey TE, Wright TW, Chidgey LK, Enneking FK. Continuous interscalene brachial plexus block for postoperative pain control at home: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 1089–95.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

33 Ilfeld BM, Vandenborne K, Duncan PW, et al. Ambulatory continuous interscalene nerve blocks decrease the time to discharge readiness after total shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized, triple-masked placebo-controlled study: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesiology 2006; 105: 999–1007.[Medline]

34 Ilfeld BM, Morey TE, Enneking FK. Continuous infraclavicular brachial plexus block for postoperative pain control at home: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 1297–1304.[Medline]

35 Ilfeld BM, Morey TE, Wang RD, Enneking FK. Continuous popliteal sciatic nerve block for postoperative pain control at home: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 959–65.[Medline]

36 White PF, Issioui T, Skrivanek GD, Early JS, Wakefield C. The use of a continuous popliteal sciatic nerve block after surgery involving the foot and ankle: does it improve the quality of recovery? Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 1303–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

37 Zaric D, Boysen K, Christiansen J, Haastrup U, Kofoed H, Rawal N. Continuous popliteal sciatic nerve block for outpatient foot surgery - a randomized, controlled trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2004; 48: 337–41.[Medline]

38 Capdevila X, Dadure C, Bringuier S, et al. Effect of patient-controlled perineural analgesia on rehabilitation and pain after ambulatory orthopedic surgery: a multicenter randomized trial. Anesthesiology 2006; 105: 566–73.[Medline]

39 Ilfeld BM, Morey TE, Enneking FK. The delivery rate accuracy of portable infusion pumps used for continuous regional anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 1331–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

40 Ilfeld BM, Morey TE, Enneking FK. Delivery rate accuracy of portable, bolus-capable infusion pumps used for patient-controlled continuous regional analgesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003; 28: 17–23.[Medline]

41 Ilfeld BM, Morey TE, Enneking FK. Portable infusion pumps used for continuous regional analgesia: delivery rate accuracy and consistency. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003; 28: 424–32.[Medline]







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.