Impact of self-coiling catheters for continuous popliteal sciatic block on postoperative pain level and dislocation rate: a randomized controlled trial.
Dislocation
Perineural catheter
Popliteal sciatic block
Self-coiling catheter
Ultrasound- guided regional anesthesia
Journal
BMC anesthesiology
ISSN: 1471-2253
Titre abrégé: BMC Anesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968535
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 05 2022
24 05 2022
Historique:
received:
08
10
2021
accepted:
19
05
2022
entrez:
24
5
2022
pubmed:
25
5
2022
medline:
27
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dislocation of catheters within the tissue is a challenge in continuous regional anesthesia. A novel self-coiling catheter design is available and has demonstrated a lower dislocation rate in a cadaver model. The dislocation rate and effect on postoperative pain of these catheters in vivo has yet to be determined and were the subjects of this investigation. After ethics committee approval 140 patients undergoing elective distal lower limb surgery were enrolled in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Preoperatively, patients were randomly assigned and received either the conventional (n = 70) or self-coiling catheter (n = 70) for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block in short axis view and by the in-plane approach from lateral to medial. The primary outcome was pain intensity after surgery and on the following three postoperative days. Secondary outcomes investigated were dislocation rate in situ determined by sonography, catheter movement visible from outside, opioid consumption as well as leakage at the puncture site. All catheters were successfully inserted. The study population of self-coiling catheters had significantly lower mean numeric rating scale values than the reference cohort on the first (p = 0.01) and second postoperative days (p < 0.01). Sonographic evaluation demonstrated, 42 standard catheters (60%) and 10 self-coiling catheters (14.3%) were dislocated in situ within the first three postoperative days. The externally visible movement of the catheters at insertion site did not differ significantly between groups through the third postoperative day. The opioid consumption was significantly lower in the self-coiling catheter group on the day of surgery and on the second and third postoperative days (p = 0.04, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively). The self-coiling catheter offers a better postoperative pain control and a lower dislocation rate within the tissue when blocking the popliteal sciatic nerve compared to a conventional catheter. Further trials in large patient cohorts are warranted to investigate the potential beneficial effects of self-coiling catheters for other localisations and other application techniques. The trial was registered at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) on 08/04/2020 ( DRKS00020938 , retrospectively registered).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Dislocation of catheters within the tissue is a challenge in continuous regional anesthesia. A novel self-coiling catheter design is available and has demonstrated a lower dislocation rate in a cadaver model. The dislocation rate and effect on postoperative pain of these catheters in vivo has yet to be determined and were the subjects of this investigation.
METHODS
After ethics committee approval 140 patients undergoing elective distal lower limb surgery were enrolled in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Preoperatively, patients were randomly assigned and received either the conventional (n = 70) or self-coiling catheter (n = 70) for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block in short axis view and by the in-plane approach from lateral to medial. The primary outcome was pain intensity after surgery and on the following three postoperative days. Secondary outcomes investigated were dislocation rate in situ determined by sonography, catheter movement visible from outside, opioid consumption as well as leakage at the puncture site.
RESULTS
All catheters were successfully inserted. The study population of self-coiling catheters had significantly lower mean numeric rating scale values than the reference cohort on the first (p = 0.01) and second postoperative days (p < 0.01). Sonographic evaluation demonstrated, 42 standard catheters (60%) and 10 self-coiling catheters (14.3%) were dislocated in situ within the first three postoperative days. The externally visible movement of the catheters at insertion site did not differ significantly between groups through the third postoperative day. The opioid consumption was significantly lower in the self-coiling catheter group on the day of surgery and on the second and third postoperative days (p = 0.04, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively).
CONCLUSION
The self-coiling catheter offers a better postoperative pain control and a lower dislocation rate within the tissue when blocking the popliteal sciatic nerve compared to a conventional catheter. Further trials in large patient cohorts are warranted to investigate the potential beneficial effects of self-coiling catheters for other localisations and other application techniques.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The trial was registered at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) on 08/04/2020 ( DRKS00020938 , retrospectively registered).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35610566
doi: 10.1186/s12871-022-01700-x
pii: 10.1186/s12871-022-01700-x
pmc: PMC9128226
doi:
Substances chimiques
Analgesics, Opioid
0
Anesthetics, Local
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
159Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Can J Anaesth. 2013 Dec;60(12):1272-3
pubmed: 24043379
J Anesth. 2014 Dec;28(6):854-60
pubmed: 24789659
Can J Anaesth. 2015 Aug;62(8):875-82
pubmed: 25851020
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Apr 01;118(4):586-592
pubmed: 28403412
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012 Jul-Aug;37(4):410-4
pubmed: 22609646
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2017 Feb;70(1):72-76
pubmed: 28184270
Br J Anaesth. 2016 Aug;117(2):220-7
pubmed: 27440634
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Sep;115(3):457-62
pubmed: 26205902
Br J Anaesth. 2013 Oct;111(4):564-72
pubmed: 23740042
Anesthesiology. 2006 Sep;105(3):566-73
pubmed: 16931991
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2014;2014:569107
pubmed: 25254055
J Arthroplasty. 2013 May;28(5):807-14
pubmed: 23434107
Br J Anaesth. 2013 Nov;111(5):800-6
pubmed: 23748198
Anesth Analg. 2008 Mar;106(3):1015-6, table of contents
pubmed: 18292456
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014 Jan;42(1):37-42
pubmed: 24471662
Anaesthesia. 2012 Mar;67(3):250-5
pubmed: 22321080
Anesthesiology. 2002 Oct;97(4):959-65
pubmed: 12357165
Anesth Analg. 2018 Sep;127(3):759-766
pubmed: 29847387
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Oct 10;20(1):441
pubmed: 31601208
Anesthesiology. 2013 Apr;118(4):934-44
pubmed: 23392233
BMC Anesthesiol. 2018 Dec 19;18(1):191
pubmed: 30567487
Anesthesiology. 2020 Apr;132(4):854-866
pubmed: 31996555
Anaesthesia. 2016 Apr;71(4):373-9
pubmed: 26849172
J Hand Surg Am. 2014 Feb;39(2):324-9
pubmed: 24480691
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011 May-Jun;36(3):261-5
pubmed: 21519311
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011 Sep-Oct;36(5):470-5
pubmed: 21857268
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jul;26(7):1175-1181
pubmed: 28479257
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Apr;112(4):759-60
pubmed: 24645151
Anesth Analg. 2013 Dec;117(6):1485-92
pubmed: 24257398
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;36(2):171-6
pubmed: 21270719
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;36(2):181-4
pubmed: 21425514
Anesth Analg. 2014 Mar;118(3):621-7
pubmed: 24413546
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020 Feb;64(2):238-244
pubmed: 31605392
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;35(2):123-6
pubmed: 20216031
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016 Oct 21;2:64
pubmed: 27965879
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004 Mar;48(3):337-41
pubmed: 14982567
Anesth Analg. 2016 May;122(5):1689-95
pubmed: 26962712
Anaesthesist. 2006 Jan;55(1):33-40
pubmed: 16193317
Anaesthesia. 2015 Jan;70(1):41-6
pubmed: 25209310
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Sep;29(9):393-8
pubmed: 26165259
Foot Ankle Int. 2010 Dec;31(12):1043-7
pubmed: 21189203
Br J Anaesth. 2010 Dec;105 Suppl 1:i86-96
pubmed: 21148658
BMC Anesthesiol. 2005 Mar 17;5(1):1
pubmed: 15774007
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Dec;115(6):912-9
pubmed: 26582852
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Aug;45(8):634-639
pubmed: 32540878