Could C3, 4, and 5 Nerve Root Block be a Better Alternative to Interscalene Block Plus Intermediate Cervical Plexus Block for Patients Undergoing Surgery for Midshaft and Medial Clavicle Fractures? A Randomized Controlled Trial

Author:

Han Junde1,Xu Yang1,Shan Yu1,Xie Yaming1,Wang Aizhong1,Gu Chentao1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, PR China

Abstract

Abstract Background Variable innervation of the clavicle is a major challenge in surgery of clavicle fractures with patients under regional anesthesia. An interscalene block (ISB) combined with an intermediate cervical plexus block (ICPB) provides analgesia in clavicle fracture surgery, but this combination does not completely block sensation in the midshaft or medial clavicle. Cervical nerve root block is an alternative to deep cervical plexus block and has recently been used as an analgesic method in the neck and shoulder. Whether it should be used as an alternative for midshaft and medial clavicle fractures is unknown. Questions/purposes In this randomized controlled trial, we compared a C3, 4, and 5 nerve root block to ISB combined with ICPB in surgery of midshaft and medial clavicle fractures in terms of the (1) proportion of patients achieving a sensory block that is sufficient for surgery, (2) onset time and duration of the block, and (3) effectiveness of postoperative analgesia, as measured by pain scores and consumption of analgesics. Methods Between November 2021 and December 2021, we treated 154 patients for clavicle fractures. A total of 122 were potentially eligible, 91 of whom agreed to participate in this study. Twenty-nine patients were excluded because the patients chose general anesthesia or declined to undergo surgery. Ultimately, 62 patients were randomly allocated into the C3, 4, and 5 group or ISB + ICPB group, with 31 patients in each group; there were no dropouts. All patients were analyzed in the group they were randomized to under intention-to-treat principles. The assessor and patients were blinded to randomization throughout the trial. The two groups did not differ in any important ways, including age, gender, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and type of clavicle fracture. The two groups received either an ultrasound-guided C3, 4, and 5 nerve root block with 2, 3, and 5 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine or ultrasound-guided ISB with ICPB with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each group with a successful nerveba block who did not receive general anesthesia; this was defined as nerve block success. Secondary outcomes included the onset time and duration of the sensory block, defined as the onset to the moment when the patients felt pain and sought rescue analgesia; pain assessment in terms of the numeric rating scale (NRS) score (range 0 to 10) for pain after nerve block before and during surgery; and the median amount of sufentanil consumed intraoperatively and postoperatively in the recovery room. The dosing of sufentanil was determined by the assessor when the NRS score was 1 to 3 points. If the NRS score was more than 3 points, general anesthesia was administered as a rescue method. Complications after the two inventions such as toxic reaction, dyspnea, hoarseness, pneumothorax, and Horner syndrome were also recorded in this study. Results A higher proportion of patients in the C3, 4, and 5 group had a successful nerve block than in the ISB + ICPB group (97% [30 of 31] versus 68% [21 of 31], risk ratio 6 [95% CI 1.5 to 37]; p < 0.01). The median onset time was 2.5 minutes (range 2.0 to 3.0 minutes) in the C3, 4, and 5 group and 12 minutes (range 9 to 16 minutes) in the ISB + ICPB group (difference of medians 10 minutes; p < 0.001). The sensory block duration was 10 ± 2 hours in the C3, 4, and 5 group and 8 ± 2 hours in the ISB + ICPB group (mean difference 2 hours [95% CI 1 to 3 hours]; p < 0.001). The median sufentanil consumption was lower in the C3, 4, 5 group than in the ISB + ICPB (median 5 µg [range 0.0 to 5.0 µg] versus median 0 µg [range 0.0 to 0.0 µg]; difference of medians 5.0 µg; p < 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups regarding NRS scores after nerve blocks and NRS score for incision and periosteum separation, with the minimum clinically important difference set at a 2-point difference (of 10). There were no severe complications in this study. Conclusion Based on our analysis of the data, a C3, 4, and 5 nerve root block was better than ISB combined with ICPB for surgery to treat medial shaft and medial clavicle fractures. When choosing the anesthesia method, however, the patient’s basic physiologic condition and possible complications should be considered. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,General Medicine,Surgery

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3