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 (28) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sia, S. Articles by Ponsecchi, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sia, S. Articles by Ponsecchi, P.

---

REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE

Multiple-Injection Axillary Brachial Plexus Block: A Comparison of Two Methods of Nerve Localization–Nerve Stimulation Versus Paresthesia

Department of Anesthesiology, Centro Traumatologico Ortopedico, Firenze, Italy

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Salvatore Sia, MD, Via Santelli, 41, 50134 Firenze, Italy.

We conducted this prospective study to compare the onset time and the success rate of a multiple-injection axillary brachial plexus block performed by using two methods of nerve localization: paresthesia elicitation or nerve stimulation. Each of the major nerves of the plexus was located by elicitation of a paresthesia (Group PAR; n = 50) or by nerve stimulation (Group PNS; n = 50) and injected with 10 mL of local anesthetic solution. Time to perform the block, onset time of the primary block, time to achieve readiness for surgery, and total anesthetic time were significantly shorter in Group PNS than in Group PAR. The incidence of complete block was larger in Group PNS than in Group PAR (91% vs 76%; P < 0.05), and this was related to a larger success rate for anesthetizing the radial and the musculocutaneous nerves (P < 0.05). The frequency of venous puncture was larger in Group PAR (P < 0.05). For multiple-injection axillary brachial plexus block, we conclude that nerve stimulation resulted in a greater success rate and a faster onset than paresthesia elicitation, and it should be considered when the radial and musculocutaneous nerve distributions are involved in the surgical area.

Implications: Two methods of nerve localization were compared when performing an axillary brachial plexus block by the multiple-injection technique. Nerve stimulation provided a faster onset and a greater incidence of complete block, related to a better success rate for anesthetizing the radial and the musculocutaneous nerves, than paresthesia elicitation.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. A. Liguori, V. M. Zayas, J. T. YaDeau, R. L. Kahn, L. Paroli, V. Buschiazzo, and A. Wu Nerve localization techniques for interscalene brachial plexus blockade: a prospective, randomized comparison of mechanical paresthesia versus electrical stimulation. Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2006; 103(3): 761 - 767. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Serradell, R. Herrero, J. A. Villanueva, J. A. Santos, J. M. Moncho, and J. Masdeu Comparison of three different volumes of mepivacaine in axillary plexus block using multiple nerve stimulation{dagger} Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2003; 91(4): 519 - 524. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Sia, A. Lepri, M. C. Campolo, and R. Fiaschi Four-Injection Brachial Plexus Block Using Peripheral Nerve Stimulator: A Comparison Between Axillary and Humeral Approaches Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2002; 95(4): 1075 - 1079. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R.-T. Kiefer, S. Sia, M. Bartoli, A. Lepri, O. Marchini, and P. Ponzecchi Eliciting Paresthesias for Peripheral Nerve Block: A Harmful Clinical Standard? Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2001; 92(3): 795 - 796. [Full Text] [PDF]