Combined Intermediate Cervical Plexus and Costoclavicular Block for Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Prospective Feasibility Study.
anesthesia
brachial plexus
cervical plexus
nerve block
shoulder surgery
Journal
Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jun 2023
29 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
16
05
2023
revised:
23
06
2023
accepted:
26
06
2023
medline:
29
7
2023
pubmed:
29
7
2023
entrez:
29
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A combined cervical plexus and costoclavicular block provides effective shoulder analgesia without the risk of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. However, whether this technique can also provide effective anesthesia for shoulder surgery remains unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the feasibility and adverse effects of combined blocks in arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Fifty patients scheduled for arthroscopic shoulder surgery were prospectively enrolled. Intermediate cervical plexus (5 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine) and costoclavicular (20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine) blocks were administered under ultrasound guidance. The block procedure time, needle pass, patient discomfort, anesthesia quality, onset time, postoperative analgesia quality, adverse events, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Surgical and block success were achieved in 45 (90%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 78-97%) and 44 (88%; 95% CI, 76-95%) patients, respectively. Three patients required local anesthetic supplementation, and two required general anesthesia. The incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis was 12.0% (95% CI, 4.5-24.3%). Postoperative pain control was effective for the first 24 h postoperative. Neurological deficits were not observed. The patients reported a high level of satisfaction. This study revealed that a combined cervical plexus and costoclavicular block provided effective surgical anesthesia for arthroscopic shoulder surgery with a 12% incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. Further randomized studies comparing this technique with interscalene block are required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37511691
pii: jpm13071080
doi: 10.3390/jpm13071080
pmc: PMC10381335
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Inha University
ID : 67863-1
Références
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017 Oct;61(9):1192-1202
pubmed: 28776638
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2000 Oct;44(9):1160-2
pubmed: 11028741
Can J Anaesth. 2014 Dec;61(12):1098-102
pubmed: 25208976
Br J Anaesth. 2003 Nov;91(5):733-5
pubmed: 14570798
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2020 Sep;37(9):780-786
pubmed: 32740321
Clin Anat. 2017 Nov;30(8):1077-1082
pubmed: 28726261
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Nov-Dec;35(6):539-43
pubmed: 20975470
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Jan 11;:
pubmed: 30635497
J Anesth. 2020 Aug;34(4):483-490
pubmed: 32236682
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016 May-Jun;41(3):387-91
pubmed: 27035461
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Mar;45(3):209-213
pubmed: 31941792
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017 Apr;61(4):427-435
pubmed: 28164268
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018 Aug;43(6):590-595
pubmed: 29630033
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021 Jan;46(1):31-34
pubmed: 33024005
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Mar/Apr;42(2):233-240
pubmed: 28157792
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Sep 20;:
pubmed: 31541010
Anaesthesist. 2015 Jun;64(6):446-50
pubmed: 26013020
Anesthesiology. 2018 Jul;129(1):47-57
pubmed: 29634491
Can J Anaesth. 2018 Mar;65(3):280-287
pubmed: 29270914
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Mar;65(3):301-8
pubmed: 22169081