Anatomical Evaluation of a Conventional Pectoralis II Versus a Subserratus Plane Block for Breast Surgery.
Journal
Anesthesia and analgesia
ISSN: 1526-7598
Titre abrégé: Anesth Analg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1310650
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
24
7
2020
medline:
18
11
2020
entrez:
24
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pectoralis I and II (Pecs I/Pecs II) blocks are modern regional anesthetic techniques performed in combination to anesthetize the nerves involved in breast surgery and axillary node dissection. Pecs II spread and clinical efficacy is thought to be independent of whether injection occurs between pectoralis minor and serratus anterior or deep to serratus anterior. Injecting deep to serratus anterior onto the rib may be technically easier; however, our clinical experience suggests that this approach may be less effective for axillary dissection. We undertook a cadaveric study to evaluate a subserratus plane approach for use in breast and axillary surgery. Ultrasound-guided blocks using methylene blue dye were performed on 4 Genelyn-embalmed cadavers to assess and compare dye spread after a conventional Pecs II and a subserratus plane block at the third rib. Conventional Pecs II injection demonstrated staining of the intercostobrachial nerve, third intercostal nerve, thoracodorsal nerve, long thoracic nerve, medial pectoral, and lateral pectoral nerve. The subserratus plane produced significantly less axillary spread, incomplete staining of the medial pectoral, and very minimal staining of the lateral pectoral nerve. Dye spread was limited to the lateral cutaneous branches of the intercostal nerves in both injections. In our cadaveric study, injecting deep to serratus plane produced significantly less axillary spread. For breast surgery excluding the axilla, both techniques may be effective; however, for axillary dissection, the conventional Pecs II is likely to produce superior analgesia and additionally may help achieve complete coverage of the deeper pectoral nerve branches.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Pectoralis I and II (Pecs I/Pecs II) blocks are modern regional anesthetic techniques performed in combination to anesthetize the nerves involved in breast surgery and axillary node dissection. Pecs II spread and clinical efficacy is thought to be independent of whether injection occurs between pectoralis minor and serratus anterior or deep to serratus anterior. Injecting deep to serratus anterior onto the rib may be technically easier; however, our clinical experience suggests that this approach may be less effective for axillary dissection. We undertook a cadaveric study to evaluate a subserratus plane approach for use in breast and axillary surgery.
METHODS
Ultrasound-guided blocks using methylene blue dye were performed on 4 Genelyn-embalmed cadavers to assess and compare dye spread after a conventional Pecs II and a subserratus plane block at the third rib.
RESULTS
Conventional Pecs II injection demonstrated staining of the intercostobrachial nerve, third intercostal nerve, thoracodorsal nerve, long thoracic nerve, medial pectoral, and lateral pectoral nerve. The subserratus plane produced significantly less axillary spread, incomplete staining of the medial pectoral, and very minimal staining of the lateral pectoral nerve. Dye spread was limited to the lateral cutaneous branches of the intercostal nerves in both injections.
CONCLUSIONS
In our cadaveric study, injecting deep to serratus plane produced significantly less axillary spread. For breast surgery excluding the axilla, both techniques may be effective; however, for axillary dissection, the conventional Pecs II is likely to produce superior analgesia and additionally may help achieve complete coverage of the deeper pectoral nerve branches.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32701547
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005039
pii: 00000539-202009000-00036
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
928-934Références
Tao Z, Shi A, Lu C, Song T, Zhang Z, Zhao JBreast cancer: epidemiology and etiology. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2015;72:333–338.
Andreae MH, Andreae DARegional anaesthesia to prevent chronic pain after surgery: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111:711–720.
Bashandy GM, Abbas DNPectoral nerves I and II blocks in multimodal analgesia for breast cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2015;40:68–74.
Ní Eochagáin A, Burns D, Riedel B, Sessler DI, Buggy DJThe effect of anaesthetic technique during primary breast cancer surgery on neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-lymphocyte ratio and return to intended oncological therapy. Anaesthesia. 2018;73:603–611.
Calì Cassi L, Biffoli F, Francesconi D, Petrella G, Buonomo OAnesthesia and analgesia in breast surgery: the benefits of peripheral nerve block. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017;21:1341–1345.
Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AMRClinically Oriented Anatomy. 2006:5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; xxxiii, 1209.
Hanna ASLong thoracic and thoracodorsal nerves. In: Anatomy and Exposures of Spinal Nerves. 2015.Cham, Switzerland: Springer;
Blanco RThe “pecs block”: a novel technique for providing analgesia after breast surgery. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:847–848.
Blanco R, Fajardo M, Parras Maldonado TUltrasound description of Pecs II (modified Pecs I): a novel approach to breast surgery. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2012;59:470–475.
Blanco R, Parras T, McDonnell JG, Prats-Galino ASerratus plane block: a novel ultrasound-guided thoracic wall nerve block. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:1107–1113.
Prakash Kg, Saniya KAnatomical study of pectoral nerves and its implications in surgery. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:AC01–AC05.
Wahba SS, Kamal SMThoracic paravertebral block versus pectoral nerve block for analgesia after breast surgery. Egypt J Anaesth. 2014;30:129–135.
Kulhari S, Bharti N, Bala I, Arora S, Singh GEfficacy of pectoral nerve block versus thoracic paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia after radical mastectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2016;117:382–386.
Blanco RA reply. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:1173–1174.
Durant E, Dixon B, Luftig J, Mantuani D, Herring AUltrasound-guided serratus plane block for ED rib fracture pain control. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35:197.e3–197.e6.
Khalil AE, Abdallah NM, Bashandy GM, Kaddah TAUltrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block versus thoracic epidural analgesia for thoracotomy pain. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2017;31:152–158.
Takimoto K, Nishijima K, Ono MSerratus plane block for persistent pain after partial mastectomy and axillary node dissection. Pain Physician. 2016;19:E481–E486.
Torre PA, Jones JW Jr, Álvarez SL, et al.Axillary local anesthetic spread after the thoracic interfacial ultrasound block - a cadaveric and radiological evaluation. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2017;67:555–564.
Fuzier RYet more on Pecs block nomenclature. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:508–509.
Syal K, Chandel AComparison of the post-operative analgesic effect of paravertebral block, pectoral nerve block and local infiltration in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy: a randomised double-blind trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2017;61:643–648.
O’Scanaill P, Keane S, Wall V, Flood G, Buggy DJSingle-shot pectoral plane (PECs I and PECs II) blocks versus continuous local anaesthetic infusion analgesia or both after non-ambulatory breast-cancer surgery: a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120:846–853.
Ueshima H, Otake HAddition of transversus thoracic muscle plane block to pectoral nerves block provides more effective perioperative pain relief than pectoral nerves block alone for breast cancer surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118:439–443.
Mayes J, Davison E, Panahi P, et al.An anatomical evaluation of the serratus anterior plane block. Anaesthesia. 2016;71:1064–1069.
Kunigo T, Murouchi T, Yamamoto S, Yamakage MSpread of injectate in ultrasound-guided serratus plane block: a cadaveric study. JA Clin Rep. 2018;4:10.
Eisma R, Lamb C, Soames RWFrom formalin to Thiel embalming: what changes? one anatomy department’s experiences. Clin Anat. 2013;26:564–571.