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 Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Taboada, M. Articles by Atanassoff, P. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Taboada, M. Articles by Atanassoff, P. G. Related Collections Equipment Anesthetic Techniques Monitoring (Non-cardiac) Regional Anesthesia

---

REGIONAL ANESTHESIA

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison Between the Popliteal and Subgluteal Approaches for Continuous Sciatic Nerve Block with Stimulating Catheters

From the University of Santiago de Compostela, Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago, Spain.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Manuel Taboada Muñiz, Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago, Travesía da Choupana s/n. 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Address e-mail to manutabo{at}yahoo.es.

In this prospective, blinded study, we randomized 56 patients undergoing hallux valgus repair to receive continuous sciatic nerve block using a subgluteal (n = 28) or a posterior popliteal approach (n = 28) with a perineural stimulating catheter. Postoperatively, the stimulating catheter was connected to a patient-controlled analgesia pump with 0.0625% levobupivacaine (basal infusion rate of 3 mL/h, patient-controlled bolus dose of 3 mL, and lockout time of 20 min). Both approaches provided similar postoperative analgesia; however, local anesthetic consumption was larger in the popliteal group (4.9 ± 1.4 mL/h) compared with the subgluteal group (3.8 ± 1.1 mL/h; P < 0.05). We conclude continuous postoperative analgesia using stimulating catheters was effective at both injection sites; however, a subgluteal approach reduced the overall amount of local anesthetic.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Robards, R. D. Wang, S. Clendenen, B. Ladlie, and R. Greengrass Sciatic Nerve Catheter Placement: Success with Using the Raj Approach Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2009; 109(3): 972 - 975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Taboada, J. Rodriguez, C. Valino, M. Vazquez, M. Bermudez, J. Alvarez, and P. G. Atanassoff Two Unusual Cases of Urinary Incontinence During Continuous Sciatic Nerve Block with Stimulating Catheters Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2009; 108(3): 1042 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Taboada, J. Rodriguez, M. Bermudez, C. Valino, B. Ulloa, F. Aneiros, F. Gude, J. Cortes, J. Alvarez, and P. G. Atanassoff A "New" Automated Bolus Technique for Continuous Popliteal Block: A Prospective, Randomized Comparison with a Continuous Infusion Technique Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2008; 107(4): 1433 - 1437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]