Ultrasound Improves the Success Rate of a Tibial Nerve Block at the Ankle

被引:63
作者
Redborg, Kirsten E.
Antonakakis, John G.
Beach, Michael L.
Chinn, Christopher D.
Sites, Brian D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Dartmouth Hitchcock Med Ctr, Dartmouth Med Sch, Dept Anesthesiol, Lebanon, NH 03756 USA
关键词
FOREFOOT SURGERY;
D O I
10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181a343a2
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background: The tibial nerve provides the majority of sensation to the foot. Although multiple techniques have been described, there exists little evidence-based medicine evaluating different techniques for blocking the tibial nerve at the ankle. We hypothesized that an ultrasound (US)-guided tibial nerve block at the ankle would prove more successful than a conventional approach based on surface landmarks. Methods: Eighteen healthy volunteers were prospectively randomized into this controlled and blinded study. Each subject was placed prone, and one ankle was randomly assigned to receive either an US-guided tibial nerve block (group US) or a traditional landmark-based tibial nerve block (group LM). The subject's other ankle then received the alternate approach. All blocks were performed with 5 mL of 3% chloroprocaine. We evaluated sensory and motor blocks. A successful block was defined as complete loss of sensation to both ice and pinprick at 5 cutaneous sites. Secondary outcome variables included performance times, number of needle passes, participant satisfaction, and presence of any complications. Results: At 30 mins, the block was complete in 72% of participants in group US as compared with 22% in group LM. At all times, the proportion of complete blocks was higher in group US. Ultrasound-guided blocks took longer on average to perform than traditional blocks (159 vs 79 sees; P < 0.001). There were more needle redirects in group US, with 8 subjects requiring 3 or more redirects versus none in group LM. Subjects preferred the US block 78% of the time (95% confidence interval, 52%-95%). Conclusions: in healthy volunteers, US guidance results in a more successful tibial nerve block at the ankle than does a traditional approach using surface landmarks.
引用
收藏
页码:256 / 260
页数:5
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
BOEZAART AP, 2006, ANESTHESIA ORTHOPEDI, P356
[2]  
BROWN DL, 1999, ATLAS REGIONAL ANEST, P131
[3]  
COUSINS MJ, 1998, NEURAL BLOCKADE CLIN, P389
[4]   Forefoot surgery with ankle tourniquet:: Complete or selective ankle block? [J].
Delgado-Martínez, AD ;
Marchal, JM ;
Molina, M ;
Palma, A .
REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE, 2001, 26 (02) :184-186
[5]   Evaluation of a proximal block site and the use of nerve-stimulator-guided needle placement for posterior tibial nerve block [J].
Doty, Robert, Jr. ;
Sukhani, Radha ;
Kendall, Mark C. ;
Yaghmour, Edward ;
Nader, Antoun ;
Brodskaia, Alina ;
Kataria, Tripti C. ;
McCarthy, Robert .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 2006, 103 (05) :1300-1305
[6]  
Gerbert J, 1971, J Am Podiatry Assoc, V61, P8
[7]   Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia - Current state of the art [J].
Gray, AT .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2006, 104 (02) :368-373
[8]  
KOFOED H, 1982, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P97
[9]   LATERAL POPLITEAL SCIATIC-NERVE BLOCK COMPARED WITH ANKLE BLOCK FOR ANALGESIA FOLLOWING FOOT SURGERY [J].
MCLEOD, DH ;
WONG, DHW ;
VAGHADIA, H ;
CLARIDGE, RJ ;
MERRICK, PM .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA-JOURNAL CANADIEN D ANESTHESIE, 1995, 42 (09) :765-769
[10]  
MEYERSON M, 1992, FOOT ANKLE, V13, P282