Dataset Information

Risk Analysis of Needle Injury to the Long Thoracic Nerve during Ultrasound-Guided C7 Selective Nerve Root Block.

ABSTRACT: Background and Objectives: Ultrasound (US)-guided cervical selective nerve root block (SNRB) is a widely used treatment for upper limb radicular pain. The long thoracic nerve (LTN) passes through the middle scalene muscle (MSM) at the C7 level. The needle trajectory of US-guided C7 SNRB pierces the MSM, therefore indicating a high probability of injury to the LTN. We aimed to identify the LTN and to investigate the risk of needle injury to the nerve during US-guided C7 SNRB. Materials and Methods: This retrospective observational study included 30 patients who underwent US-guided SNRB at the C7 level in a university hospital. We measured the maximal cross-sectional diameter (MCSD) of the LTN and cross-sectional area (CSA) of the C7 nerve root and assessed the injury risk of LTN during US-guided C7 SNRB by simulating the trajectory of the needle in the ultrasound image. Results: The LTN was detectable in all the cases, located inside and outside the MSM in 19 (63.3%) and 11 (36.7%) of cases, respectively. The LTN's mean MCSD was 2.10 mm (SD 0.13), and the C7 root's CSA was 10.78 mm² (SD 1.05). The LTN location was within the simulated risk zone in 86.7% (26/30) of cases. Conclusion: Our findings suggest a high potential for LTN injury during US-guided C7 SNRB. The clear visualization of LTNs in the US images implies that US guidance may help avoid nerve damage and make the procedure safer. When performing US-guided C7 SNRB, physicians should take into consideration the location of the LTN.

SUBMITTER: Kang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8235341 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and study aims Traditionally in the case of a vascular interposition, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been contraindicated. A transvascular route (TV) is feasible and probably a safe alternative approach in selected patients, but data are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the diagnostic yield and safety of EUS-TV-FNA in thoracic and abdominal lesions. Secondary aims included evaluation of the clinical impact and technical aspects. Patients and methods A retrospective multicenter study was conducted with inclusion of all consecutive patients that underwent EUS-TV-FNA from July 2007 to January 2020. Feasibility, cytopathology, procedure details, and safety were evaluated. Univariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with incidents, cytopathological diagnosis, and clinical impact. Results Data were collected from a total of 49 cases and 50 EUS-TV-FNAs. The aorta (n = 19) and portal system (n = 17) were the most frequently punctured. The most frequent lesions were mediastinal lymph nodes (n = 13) and pancreatic tumors (n = 11). The diagnostic yield was 86 %, and there were nondiagnostic samples in seven cases. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88 % (95 %CI,0.74-0.96), 100 % (95 %CI,0.59-1), and 90 % (95 %CI,0.78-0.96), respectively. Only three incidents were detected: two mural hematomas and a self-limited bleeding of gastroduodenal artery. In most patients, there was a significant impact on clinical management (88 %). Arterial vessel and ASA-III had a trend with incidents (both, P < 0.08). Rapid on-site evlauation was found to be an independent predictor for obtaining a conclusive sample (OR 6.2; 95 %CI, 1.06-36.73, P < 0.04). Conclusions EUS-TV-FNA is feasible, seems to be safe, and can be recommended when no other targets are available, and the information obtained would impact on the clinical plan.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Historically, the anterolateral interscalene block--deposition of local anesthetic adjacent to the brachial plexus roots/trunks--has been used for surgical procedures involving the shoulder. The resulting block frequently failed to provide surgical anesthesia of the hand and forearm, even though the brachial plexus at this level included all of the axons of the upper-extremity terminal nerves. However, it remains unknown whether deposition of local anesthetic adjacent to the seventh cervical root or inferior trunk results in anesthesia of the hand and forearm. METHODS:Using ultrasound guidance and a needle-in-plane posterior approach, a Tuohy needle was positioned with the tip located between the deepest and next-deepest visualized brachial plexus root/trunk, followed by injection of mepivacaine (1.5%). Grip strength and the tolerance to cutaneous electrical current in 5 terminal nerve distributions were measured at baseline and then every 5 minutes following injection for a total of 30 minutes. The primary end point was the proportion of cases in which the interscalene nerve block resulted in a decrease in grip strength of at least 90% and hand and forearm anesthesia (tolerance to >50 mA of current in all 5 terminal nerve distributions) within 30 minutes. The primary hypothesis was that a single-injection interscalene brachial plexus block produces a similar rate of anesthesia of the hand and forearm to the published success rate of 95% for other brachial plexus block approaches. RESULTS:Of 55 subjects with blocks placed per protocol, all had a successful block of the shoulder as defined by inability to abduct at the shoulder joint. Thirty-three subjects had measurements at 30 minutes following local anesthetic deposition, and only 5 (15%) of these subjects had a surgical block of the hand and forearm (P < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval, 6%-33%). We therefore reject the hypothesis that the interscalene block as performed in this study provides equivalent anesthesia to the hand and forearm compared with other brachial plexus block techniques. Block failures of the hand and forearm were due to inadequate cutaneous anesthesia of the ulnar (n = 27; 82%), median (n = 26; 78%), or radial (n = 22; 67%) distributions; the medial forearm (n = 25; 76%); and/or the lateral forearm (n = 14; 42%). Failure to achieve at least a 90% reduction in grip strength occurred in 16 subjects (48%). CONCLUSIONS:This study did not find evidence to support the hypothesis that local anesthetic injected adjacent to the deepest brachial plexus roots/trunks reliably results in surgical anesthesia of the hand and forearm.

Project description:BackgroundTo relieve prostate biopsy-related pain, various local anesthetic methods have been used. The best approach was periprostatic nerve block (PNB) in the past decade. Recently, pelvic plexus block (PPB) was employed to ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Compared with the PNB, the PPB may block a more extensive area. Therefore, PPB may be more effective in relieving prostate biopsy-related pain. However, several prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PPB and PNB drew conflicting conclusions, so we compared the difference of pain control between PPB and PNB for prostate biopsy.MethodsThe following databases were retrieved up to October 2020: PubMed, Chinese biomedicine literature database, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Internet databases, Wan fang databases and Google Scholar. Only the RCTs were included. The main outcome measures were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and complications. The literature quality and extracted data were evaluated by two authors independently. The software Review Manager (version 5.3) was used to perform the data analysis that comparing the difference of VAS score and complications between PPB and PNB.ResultsAfter screening, six articles including 336 patients from PPB group and 337 patients from PNB group were performed meta-analysis in this study. The results showed that there were no significant difference of pain control in probe insertion and local anesthetic injection between PPB and PNB, while compared with PNB, patients with PPB experienced less pain during biopsy and 30 min after biopsy, respectively(MD = -0.57, 95% CI: -1.11 to -0.03, Z = 2.06, P = 0.04; MD = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.40 to -0.02, Z = 2.15, P = 0.03). In subgroup analysis, the pooled results showed that PPB was superior to PNB in 12-cores biopsy (pooled MD = -1.16, 95% CI: -1.61 to -0.71, P < 0.00001), and more than 40-ml prostate size, regardless of transrectal or transperineal prostate biopsy. The reported major complications were urinary retention, hematuria, infection and hemospermia. The pooled results showed that there were no obvious difference in complications between PPB group and PNB group.ConclusionsOverall, this meta-analysis suggests that PPB provides safe and effective pain control of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, and PPB is superior to PNB. In future, it also needs more high quality, large samples RCTs to verify.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Proximal brachial plexus blocks can lead to an extended period of motor paralysis and delay the return of motor function. This could influence patient satisfaction, and extend hospitalizations. The aim of the study is to compare a selective distal nerve block of the arm to a proximal axillary block, both ultrasound-guided, in terms of their motor block intensity of the elbow. Our hypothesis is that a selective nerve block of the arm would result in a different motor block of the elbow, compared to the axillary block. METHODS:A sample size of 24 patients who were undergoing elective surgery (ASA I-III) of the wrist, hand or forearm was randomly divided into two groups: Arm Group (n?=?12) and Axillary Group (n?=?12). The Arm Group received ultrasound-guided block of the median, ulnar, and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerves at the level of upper-median 1/3 of the arm, and a block of the radial and musculocutaneous nerves at the level of low-median 1/3 of the arm, while the Axillary Group received ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blocks. Both blocks used in combination with general anesthesia. RESULTS:Our results demonstrated that the incidence of motor block at the elbow in the Arm Group was lower than in the Axillary Group. Compared with the Axillary Group, the duration of motor block at the elbow and the onset time of sensory block in the Arm Group were shortened. The patient satisfaction was increased in the Arm Group. There were no differences in the duration of the sensory block, the effect on postoperative analgesia, or in the duration of the motor block at the shoulder between both groups. CONCLUSION:Our study showed that ultrasound-guided selective nerve block in the upper arm allowed improved retention of motor function at the elbow compared to axillary block. Secondarily, the ultrasound-guided selective nerve block seemed to provide similar analgesia after surgery of the hand or forearm with an enhanced patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-IOR-16008769 . Registered 3 July 2016.

Dataset Information

Risk Analysis of Needle Injury to the Long Thoracic Nerve during Ultrasound-Guided C7 Selective Nerve Root Block.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets