Resident versus staff anesthesiologist performance: Coracoid approach to infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks using a double-stimulation technique

被引:9
作者
Minville, V [1 ]
Asehnoune, K
Chassery, C
N'Guyen, L
Gris, C
Fourcade, O
Samii, K
Benhamou, D
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Toulouse, Dept Anesthesiol & Intens Care, Toulouse, France
[2] Univ Hosp Bicetre, Dept Anesthesiol & Intens Care, Le Kremlin Bicetre, France
关键词
infraclavicular brachial plexus block; regional anesthesia; nerve stimulation; resident;
D O I
10.1016/j.rapm.2005.01.009
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Objectives: Infraclavicular brachial plexus block with double stimulation (ICB) is a safe technique for upper-limb anesthesia. However, the experience of learning this technique by anesthesiology residents has not been reported. The aim of this study was to compare staff with resident anesthesiologists in the performance of ICB. Methods: Patients scheduled for orthopedic surgery of the upper limb were included in; comparative, randomized study and were given ICB by either staff anesthesiologist (Group S, n = or resident anesthesiologist (Group R, n = 110 patients). Results: Time to perform the block was 3.9 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI95%] = 3.5 to 4.3) for Group S and 5.8 minutes (CI95% = 5.2 to 6.4) for Group R (P < .05). The onset time was 14.4 minutes (CI95% = 13.5 to 15.3) for Group S and 15.9 minutes (CI95% = 14.7 to 17.1) for Group R (P = NS). Success rate was 93% for Group S and 90% for Group R (P = NS). Supplementation was performed in 8 patients in Group S versus 11 patients in Group R (P = NS). No patient needed general anesthesia. One self-limited vascular puncture was made in Group S versus 3 in Group R (P = NS). Conclusion: This report determines whether residents can perform this technique with comparable efficiency compared with staff. We conclude that ICB should be taught as part of all resident training programs.
引用
收藏
页码:233 / 237
页数:5
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Serious complications related to regional anesthesia - Results of a prospective survey in France [J].
Auroy, Y ;
Narchi, P ;
Messiah, A ;
Litt, L ;
Rouvier, B ;
Samii, K .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1997, 87 (03) :479-486
[2]   An evaluation of the infraclavicular block via a modified approach of the Raj technique [J].
Borgeat, A ;
Ekatodramis, G ;
Dumont, C .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2001, 93 (02) :436-441
[3]   Survey of regional anesthetic practice among French residents at time of certification [J].
Bouaziz, H ;
Mercier, FJ ;
Narchi, P ;
Poupard, N ;
Auroy, Y ;
Benhamou, D .
REGIONAL ANESTHESIA, 1997, 22 (03) :218-222
[4]  
BUFFINGTON CW, 1985, REGION ANESTH PAIN M, V10, P2
[5]  
Carles M, 2001, ANESTH ANALG, V92, P194
[6]  
Desroches T, 2003, CAN J ANAESTH, V50, P253, DOI 10.1007/BF03017794
[7]   Nerve stimulator and multiple injection technique for upper and lower limb blockade: Failure rate, patient acceptance, and neurologic complications [J].
Fanelli, G ;
Casati, A ;
Garancini, P ;
Torri, G .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1999, 88 (04) :847-852
[8]   Infraclavicular plexus block: Multiple injection versus single injection [J].
Gaertner, E ;
Estebe, JP ;
Zamfir, A ;
Cuby, C ;
Macaire, P .
REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE, 2002, 27 (06) :590-594
[9]   Lateral infraclavicular plexus block vs. axillary block for hand and forearm surgery [J].
Kapral, S ;
Jandrasits, O ;
Schabernig, C ;
Likar, R ;
Reddy, B ;
Mayer, N ;
Weinstabl, C .
ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 1999, 43 (10) :1047-1052
[10]  
Konrad C, 1998, ANESTH ANALG, V86, P635