Local and regional anesthesia · 2023
Neuropathies Following an Ultrasound-Guided Axillary Brachial Plexus Block.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Koh Keito, Tatsuki Onishi, Sakuraba Sonoko, Yamazaki Sho, Yako Hajime, Omae Takeshi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block (UGBPB) has interscalene, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary approaches. The axillary block is considered to be the safest and with fewer adverse events compared to the interscalene (eg, phrenic nerve block, spinal cord or vertebral artery puncture) and supraclavicular (eg, pneumothorax). However, with regard to postoperative neurological symptoms (PONS), it is controversial whether its incidence after an axillary block was higher than that after non-axillary approaches". In this study, we investigated whether the incidence of a neuropathy after an axillary block was higher than that after non-axillary approaches.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. All UGBPBs were performed under general anesthesia between January 2014 and March 2020. The outcomes included the overall incidence of PONS and neuropathies for axillary and non-axillary approaches. The etiology, symptoms, and outcomes of patients were investigated.
RESULTS: Of the 992 patients, 143 (14%) and 849 (86%) were subjected to axillary and non-axillary approaches, respectively. Among 19 cases (19.2:1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.2-20.1) of PONS, four (4.0:1000; 95% CI, 3.8-4.2) were neuropathies attributed to the UGBPB, three (21.0:1000; 95% CI, 18.1-23.8) to the axillary and one (2.8:1000; 95% CI, 2.6-3.1) to non-axillary approaches. The incidence of neuropathies after an axillary block was significantly higher than that after non-axillary approaches (P = 0.005).
CONCLUSION: The incidence of neuropathies after US-guided axillary block under general anesthesia was significantly higher than that after non-axillary approaches.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. All UGBPBs were performed under general anesthesia between January 2014 and March 2020. The outcomes included the overall incidence of PONS and neuropathies for axillary and non-axillary approaches. The etiology, symptoms, and outcomes of patients were investigated.
RESULTS: Of the 992 patients, 143 (14%) and 849 (86%) were subjected to axillary and non-axillary approaches, respectively. Among 19 cases (19.2:1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.2-20.1) of PONS, four (4.0:1000; 95% CI, 3.8-4.2) were neuropathies attributed to the UGBPB, three (21.0:1000; 95% CI, 18.1-23.8) to the axillary and one (2.8:1000; 95% CI, 2.6-3.1) to non-axillary approaches. The incidence of neuropathies after an axillary block was significantly higher than that after non-axillary approaches (P = 0.005).
CONCLUSION: The incidence of neuropathies after US-guided axillary block under general anesthesia was significantly higher than that after non-axillary approaches.