ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

A comparative study between supraclavicular brachial plexus block and Infraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper limb orthopedic surgeries: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Siddharth Sarkar , Shilpa Mitul Doshi

Siddharth Sarkar
Government medical college and Sir T. General Hospital, Bhavnagar. Maharaja krishnkumarsinhji university, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India. Email: sidsarkar1@gmail.com

Shilpa Mitul Doshi
Associate professor, department of anaesthesia, government medical college and Sir T general hospital, bhavnagar, gujarat, India.
Online First: April 28, 2019 | Cite this Article
Sarkar, S., Doshi, S. 2019. A comparative study between supraclavicular brachial plexus block and Infraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper limb orthopedic surgeries: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Bali Journal of Anesthesiology 3(1): 82-87. DOI:10.15562/bjoa.v3i1.123


Introduction: Supraclavicular brachial plexus block is a common approach as it provides faster and dense blockade. In the past few years, infraclavicular brachial plexus block has become a method of increased interest as it has a lower complication rate and near to equal efficacy. The goal of this study was to compare block performance time, block characteristics, quality of block, patient’s satisfaction, and complications between infraclavicular and supraclavicular techniques for brachial plexus block.

Patients and Methods: 100 subjects were randomized in a double-blind fashion, to receive either an infraclavicular block (Group I, n=50) or supraclavicular block (Group S, n=50) using nerve locator apparatus. Block performance time, onset, peak, duration of sensory and motor blockade, any change in hemodynamics, complications were recorded at scheduled intervals intra-operatively and post-operatively as per study protocol. Data were analyzed using GraphPad INSTAT version 3.06 software by Chi-square test or Mann-Whitney U test to compare categorical variables.

Results: The block performance time was faster in the Group S compared to the Group I (4.8±4.4 minutes vs. 6.3±1.39 minutes, p <0.001). The sensory block onset time was faster in Group S compared to the Group I (6.9±1.58 minutes vs. 7.6±1.34 minutes, p=0.019). Other observed variables were considered statistically not significant.

Conclusion: From our study, it is inferred that nerve locator guided Infraclavicular block by a vertical coracoid approach using multineurostimulation method is less rapidly executed as nerve locator guided supraclavicular block with a similar degree of surgical anesthesia and lesser complication rate.

References

REFERENCES

Tsui B. Ultrasound-guidance and nerve stimulation: implications for the future practice of regional anesthesia. Can J Anaesth. 2007; 54(3): 165-70. DOI: 10.1007/BF03022635

Rawal N. Analgesia for day-case surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2001; 87(1): 73-87. DOI: 10.1093/bja/87.1.73

Peterson MK, Miller FA, Sheppard DG. Ultrasound-guided block. Br J Anaesth. 2002; 88: 621-4. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12066995

Eroglu A. Regional Anesthesia Techniques in Orthopedic Surgery. J Anaesth Crit Care Open Access. 2016; 5(2): 00182. DOI: 10.15406/jaccoa.2016.05.00182.

Brown AR. Anesthesia for procedures of the hand and elbow. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2002; 16(2): 227-46. DOI: 10.1053/bean.2002.0235

Raj PP, Montgomery SJ, Nettles D, Jenkins MT. Infraclavicular brachial plexus block--a new approach. Anaesth analog. 1973; 52(6): 897-904. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4796563

Trehan V, Srivastava U, Kumar A, et al. Comparison of two approaches of infraclavicular brachial plexus block for orthopedic surgery below mid-humerus. Indian J Anaesth. 2010; 54(3): 210–214. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5049.65362

Kumar AN, Krishna NVM, Karthik VJ, et al. A randomized comparative study on brachial plexus block using nerve stimulator: infraclavicular - coracoid approach v/s supraclavicular approach. Indian Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2017; 4(1): 8-12. DOI: 10.18231/2394-4994.2017.0003.

Yang CW, Kwon HU, Cho CK, et al. A comparison of infraclavicular and supraclavicular approaches to the brachial plexus using neurostimulation. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2010; 58(3): 260–266. DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2010.58.3.260.

Satani TR, Shah SS, Rathod KB, et al. A comparison of infraclavicular and supraclavicular approaches to the brachial plexus. International Journal of Scientific Research. 2012; 2(12): 442-5. DOI: 10.15373/22778179/DEC2013/136.

Shah S, Mehta K, Patel K, et al. Comparison of infraclavicular brachial plexus block with supraclavicular brachial plexus block in upper limb surgeries. NHL J Med Sci. 2013; 2: 43–5. DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_402_16

Sharma D, Srivastava N, Pawar S, et al. Infraclavicular brachial plexus block: Comparison of posterior cord stimulation with lateral or medial cord stimulation, a prospective double-blinded study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013 Apr; 7(2): 134-7. DOI: 10.4103/1658-354X.114054.

Tran DQ, Russo G, Muñoz L, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison between ultrasound-guided supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary brachial plexus blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009; 34: 366–71. DOI: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181ac7d18

Abhinaya RJ, Venkatraman R, Matheswaran P, et al. A randomized comparative evaluation of supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches to brachial plexus block for upper limb surgeries using both ultrasound and nerve stimulator. Indian J Anaesth. 2017; 61(7): 581–586. DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_402_16.


Article Views      : 326
PDF Downloads : 144