Subfascial versus extrafascial ultrasound-guided stellate ganglion block in patients with post-mastectomy sympathetically mediated pain: A randomized clinical trial

Author:

Elramely Mohamed Adly1,Abdelaal Ahmed Mahmoud M Alkhatip Ahmed2ORCID,Hamza Mohamed Khaled3,Abdelhaq Mohamed3,Elayashy Mohamed3,Farag Ehab2,Ahmed Ahmed Shaker Ragab1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

2. Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt

3. Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine and Cairo University Hospital, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Abstract

Background Despite being a well-described intervention, the optimal anatomical approach to perform a stellate ganglion block (SGB) has been disputed. We compared the subfascial and extrafascial ultrasound-guided (USG) SGB. Methods A randomised clinical trial was conducted, consisting of 50 patients in two groups. Group I received SGB via the subfascial approach while Group II received an SGB via the extrafascial approach. The primary endpoint was successful sympathetic blockade (as indicated by a measured temperature rise of ≥2°C). Secondary endpoints included analgesic efficiency (extent of early onset of pain relief as indicated by >50% improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score at 300’s post-procedure); occurrence of Horner’s syndrome; extent of local anaesthetic distribution; and adverse events. Results The mean increase in sympathetic blockade was significantly higher in the subfascial group (2.6 ± 0.6°C; p = .003). Analgesic efficacy was also significantly higher in the subfascial group ( p < .001). The difference in the average dermatomal spread of local anaesthetic down to T2 and up to C4 between the groups was also statistically significant ( p = .021 and p = .019, respectively). Conclusions The degree of temperature rise, pain relief and occurrence of Horner's syndrome were higher in the subfascial than the extrafascial group. The subfascial approach to SGB, with a limited volume of local anaesthetic agent, is a more reliable technique when compared to the extrafascial approach.

Funder

National Cancer Institute, Cairo University

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

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