JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Minville, V. Articles by Benhamou, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Minville, V. Articles by Benhamou, D. Related Collections Anesthetic Techniques Regional Anesthesia

---

REGIONAL ANESTHESIA

Infraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block Versus Humeral Approach: Comparison of Anesthetic Time and Efficacy

Vincent Minville, MD^*, Roland Amathieu, MD^*, N’Guyen Luc, MD^*, Claude Gris, MD^*, Olivier Fourcade, MD, PhD^*, Kamran Samii, MD^*, and Dan Benhamou, MD

*Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Toulouse University Hospital, Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France; Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bicêtre University Hospital, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Vincent Minville, MD, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care University Hospital of Toulouse, Toulouse, France. Address e-mail to vincentminville{at}yahoo.fr.

Most upper arm regional anesthesia techniques are successful and differences in efficacy should not dictate the choice of technique. In the present study, we compared humeral block (HB) and infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) using anesthetic time (i.e., duration of the procedure + onset time) as the primary outcome measure. The block was successful when a complete sensory block was obtained in the four major nerves of the arm, and the time to complete block was recorded. Patients undergoing orthopedic surgery of the upper limb were included in a prospective randomized study and received ICB (group I, n = 60 patients) or HB (group H, n = 60 patients). Total anesthetic time was 19.5 min (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.4—21.6 min) for ICB and 20.8 min (95% CI, 18.7--22.9 min) for HB (not significant). Time to perform the block was 4.5 min (95% CI, 4-5 min) for ICB and 9.8 min (95% CI, 8.9--10.7 min) for HB (P < 0.05). The onset time was 15 min (95% CI, 13-17 min) for ICB and 11 min (95% CI, 9--13 min) for HB (P < 0.05). The success rate was 92% for ICB and 95% for HB (not significant). One self-limited vascular puncture was made in each group. HB had a faster onset time but ICB using a double-stimulation technique was faster to perform. Anesthetic time was similar with the two techniques.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Q. H. De Tran, A. Clemente, J. Doan, and R. J. Finlayson Brachial plexus blocks: a review of approaches and techniques: [Les blocs du plexus brachial : compte-rendu des approches et techniques] Can J Anesth, August 1, 2007; 54(8): 662 - 674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Minville, O. Fourcade, L. Idabouk, J. Claassen, C. Chassery, L. Nguyen, J.-C. Pourrut, and D. Benhamou Infraclavicular brachial plexus block versus humeral block in trauma patients: a comparison of patient comfort. Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2006; 102(3): 912 - 915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999