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]


     


This Article
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 Web of Science (11)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Voermans, N. C.
Right arrow Articles by van Engelen, B. G. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Voermans, N. C.
Right arrow Articles by van Engelen, B. G. M.

Anesth Analg 2006;102:330-331
© 2006 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000190722.55703.61


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Permanent Loss of Cervical Spinal Cord Function Associated with the Posterior Approach

Nicol C. Voermans, MD*, Ben J. Crul, MD, PhD{dagger}, BertJan de Bondt, MD{ddagger}, Machiel J. Zwarts, MD, PhD§, and Baziel G. M. van Engelen, MD, PhD*

*Neuromuscular Center Nijmegen, {dagger}Pain Expertise Center Nijmegen, Department of Anaesthesiology, §Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, n.voermans{at}neuro.umcn.nl, {ddagger}Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands

To the Editor:

The brachial plexus block is a suitable technique for surgical procedures of the upper extremities, although serious side effects have been reported. Direct injection into the spinal cord after interscalene block can cause permanent loss of cervical spinal cord function (1). Reversible loss of function from intrathecal injection and subarachnoidal spreading of the local anesthesia has been reported after the posterior approach (2). We report a case of permanent loss of cervical spinal cord function after the posterior approach.

A healthy, 39-yr-old man, height 190 cm, weighing 100 kg, presented with left shoulder arthroscopic acromioplasty. The position was marked in sitting position. A flexible 10-cm 25-gauge stimulation needle (Stimuplex, B Braun, Melsungen, Germany) was introduced 3 cm left of the midline at the intervertebral space C6-7 in a supine position (3). The needle was advanced perpendicular to the skin in a sagittal plane, which was complicated by contact to a bony structure (lamina C6 or transverse process of C7), after which the needle was easily advanced further. Left upper extremity muscle twitches were obtained at 0.3 mA. After a negative attempt to draw blood or cerebrospinal fluid from the needle, 40 mL bupivacaine 0.375% with adrenaline 1:200,000 was injected. Immediately after injection, the patient reported an acute pain in his left arm. Next, total flaccid paralysis of all extremities, loss of consciousness, decrease of systolic blood pressure (<60 mm Hg), and apnea occurred. His trachea was intubated and his lungs were ventilated. Acromioplasty was initiated under general anesthesia and was performed without complications. Four hours after the operation, the patient awoke and was able to breathe spontaneously. Muscle strength recovered gradually in only his legs and right arm, whereas the paresis of his left forearm and hand persisted. Moreover, a left-sided Horner syndrome was noted. One week later, a cervical T2 weighted magnetic resonance imaging scan revealed increased signal intensity of the left paramedial spinal cord, from C4 to T1 (Fig. 2), which had decreased on a second T2 weighted magnetic resonance imaging scan 6 mo later (Fig. 3). Then, the Horner syndrome and wasting and weakness of both the left forearm, hand (MRC 2/5), and upper arm (MRC 4/5) persisted (Fig. 1). Moreover, pain and temperature sensation was diminished in the left dermatomes C7, C8 and Th1.



View larger version (82K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Cervicothoracic MRI, axial and sagittal T2-weighted images. One week after clinical onset: increased signal intensity of the spinal cord, left paramedially, extending from C4 to T1.

 


View larger version (90K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Cervicothoracic MRI, axial and sagittal T2 weighted images. 6 mo after clinical onset: significant decrease of the hyperintense lesion.

 


View larger version (56K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. A and B, 6 mo after clinical onset: Horner syndrome of the left eye. Wasting of the left forearm and intrinsic hand muscles.

 

In our patient, loss of consciousness most likely resulted from intrathecal injection with spinal subarachnoid spread of the local anesthetic. The paresis of the left upper extremity that persisted indicates that intramedullary injection had also occurred. Intravascular injection of the radicular artery is another possible mechanism (4), but this seems less likely. Direct injection of fluid into the spinal cord causes pressure and separation of glia cells or neurons (1). Bupivacaine might have a direct toxic effect on the ventral horn cells of C4-8 and spread into the ciliospinal center in the lateral horn of C8-T1 (5).

Several factors support this hypothesis. Localizing in sitting position while advancing the needle in supine position might have contributed to a deviant direction. Next, the needle might have bent medially after bony contact and reached the myelum. Deviation of the tip of a flexible needle is a well-known risk and negative aspiration tests do not guarantee absolute safety (2). In addition, a rather large volume of local anesthetic was injected, which increases the risk of neurological damage (1).

In short, direct intrathecal and intramedullary injection probably caused loss of cervical spinal cord function in this patient, which further questions the safety of the posterior approach (2).

References

  1. Benumof JL. Permanent loss of cervical spinal cord function associated with interscalene block performed under general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2000;93:1541–4.[Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Aramideh M, van den Oever HL, Walstra GJ, Dzoljic M. Spinal anesthesia as a complication of brachial plexus block using the posterior approach. Anesth Analg 2002;94:1338–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Pippa P, Cominelli E, Marinelli C, Aito S. Brachial plexus block using the posterior approach. Eur J Anaesth 1990;7:411–20.[Web of Science]
  4. Brouwers PJ, Kottink EJ, Simon MA, Prevo RL. A cervical anterior spinal artery syndrome after diagnostic blockade of the right C6-nerve root. Pain 2001;96:397–9.
  5. Yamashita A, Matsumoto M, Matsumoto S, et al. A comparison of the neurotoxic effects on the spinal cord of tetracaine, bupivacaine, and ropivacaine administered intrathecally in rabbits. Anesth Analg 2003;97:512–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
E. R. Mariano, R. Afra, V. J. Loland, N. S. Sandhu, R. H. Bellars, M. L. Bishop, G. S. Cheng, L. P. Choy, R. C. Maldonado, and B. M. Ilfeld
Continuous Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block via an Ultrasound-Guided Posterior Approach: A Randomized, Triple-Masked, Placebo-Controlled Study
Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2009; 108(5): 1688 - 1694.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
B. J. Crul and N. C. Voermans
Please Don't Blame the Block ...
Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2007; 104(1): 212 - 212.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
A. P. Boezaart
Please Don't Blame the Block ...
Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2007; 104(1): 211 - 212.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
N. T. M. Jack and M. Gielen
Safety of the Posterior Approach to the Brachial Plexus
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2006; 103(4): 1046 - 1046.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
N. C. Voermans, B. J. Crul, and B. G. van Engelen
Safety of the Posterior Approach to the Brachial Plexus
Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2006; 103(4): 1046 - 1046.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
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 Web of Science (11)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Voermans, N. C.
Right arrow Articles by van Engelen, B. G. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Voermans, N. C.
Right arrow Articles by van Engelen, B. G. M.


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