JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Anesth Analg 2009; 108:1688-1694
© 2009 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318199dc86
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mariano, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ilfeld, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mariano, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Ilfeld, B. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Anesthetic Techniques
Right arrow Regional Anesthesia
Right arrow Technology


ANALGESIA

Continuous Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block via an Ultrasound-Guided Posterior Approach: A Randomized, Triple-Masked, Placebo-Controlled Study

Edward R. Mariano, MD, MAS*, Robert Afra, MD{dagger}, Vanessa J. Loland, MD*, NavParkash S. Sandhu, MD*, Richard H. Bellars, MD*, Michael L. Bishop, MD*, Gloria S. Cheng, MD*, Lynna P. Choy, MD*, Rosalita C. Maldonado, BS*, and Brian M. Ilfeld, MD, MS*

From the Departments of *Anesthesiology, and {dagger}Orthopedic Surgery, University of California, San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, California.

Address correspondence to Brian M. Ilfeld, MD, MS, Department of Anesthesiology, UCSD Center for Pain Medicine, 9300 Campus Point Dr., MC 7651, LA Jolla, CA 92037-7651. Address e-mail to bilfeld{at}ucsd.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The posterior approach for placing continuous interscalene catheters has not been studied in a controlled investigation. In this randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled study, we tested the hypothesis that an ultrasound-guided continuous posterior interscalene block provides superior postoperative analgesia compared to a single-injection ropivacaine interscalene block after moderately painful shoulder surgery.

METHODS: Preoperatively, subjects received a stimulating interscalene catheter using an ultrasound-guided, in-plane posterior approach. All subjects received an initial bolus of ropivacaine. Postoperatively, subjects were discharged with oral analgesics and a portable infusion device containing either ropivacaine 0.2% or normal saline programmed to deliver a perineural infusion over 2 days. The primary outcome was average pain on postoperative day (POD) 1 (scale: 0–10). Secondary outcomes included least and worst pain scores, oral opioid requirements, sleep disturbances, patient satisfaction, and incidence of complications.

RESULTS: Of the 32 subjects enrolled, 30 perineural catheters were placed per protocol. Continuous ropivacaine perineural infusion (n = 15) produced a statistically and clinically significant reduction in average pain (median [10th–90th percentile]) on POD 1 compared with saline infusion (n = 15) after initial ropivacaine bolus (0.0 [0.0–5.0] versus 3.0 [0.0–6.0], respectively; P < 0.001). Median oral opioid consumption (oxycodone) was lower in the ropivacaine group than in the placebo group on POD 1 (P = 0.002) and POD 2 (P = 0.002). Subjects who received a ropivacaine infusion suffered fewer sleep disturbances than those in the placebo group (P = 0.005 on POD 0 and 1 nights) and rated their satisfaction with analgesia higher than subjects who received normal saline (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a single-injection interscalene block, a 2-day continuous posterior interscalene block provides greater pain relief, minimizes supplemental opioid requirements, greatly improves sleep quality, and increases patient satisfaction after moderate-to-severe painful outpatient shoulder surgery.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
E. R. Mariano, V. J. Loland, N. S. Sandhu, R. H. Bellars, M. L. Bishop, R. Afra, S. T. Ball, R. S. Meyer, R. C. Maldonado, and B. M. Ilfeld
Ultrasound Guidance Versus Electrical Stimulation for Femoral Perineural Catheter Insertion
J. Ultrasound Med., November 1, 2009; 28(11): 1453 - 1460.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2009 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2009 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.