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 Web of Science
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sandefo, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Sandefo, I.

Anesth Analg 2006;102:1902
© 2006 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000215132.75578.3B


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Patient-Controlled Interscalene Analgesia After Shoulder Surgery: Catheter Insertion by the Posterior Approach

Ignace Sandefo, MD

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine; Clinique Saint-Paul; Martinque, France; ignacesandefo{at}hotmail.com

In Response:

We thank Dr. Boezaart (1) for his interest in our article (2) and valuable comments. We would like to take the opportunity to address the issues point by point.

First, the misinterpretation of the "Y" as the Boezaart needle insertion point is unfortunate and was not intended. The Boezaart needle insertion point is "at the ‘V’ formed by the trapezius and levator scapulae muscles at the level of C6, between 4 and 12 cm lateral of the midpoint of the spinous process of C6" (3).

Second, in our study, only 2.5% of patients complained of cervical pain, which was easily treated with paracetamol or spontaneously resolved after catheter removal. In our experience with the posterior approach to the brachial plexus block, cervical pain ceased being an issue.

Third, the evidence of the inaccuracy of surface landmarks for the regional anesthesia technique is a major concern. Real-time imaging techniques are needed to improve the safety of regional anesthesia.

Last, we agree with Dr. Boezaart that the risk of pneumothorax should be very small with the posterior approach to the brachial plexus block.

References

  1. Boezart AP. Patient-controlled interscalene analgesia after shoulder surgery: catheter insertion by the posterior approach. Anesth Analg 2006;102:xxx.
  2. Sandefo I, Bernard J-M, Van Elstraete A, et al. Patient-controlled interscalene analgesia after shoulder surgery: catheter insertion by the posterior approach. Anesth Analg 2005;100:1496–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Boezaart AP, Koorn R, Rosenquist RW Paravertebral approach to the brachial plexus: an anatomical improvement in technique. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003;28:241–4.[Web of Science][Medline]




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 Web of Science
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sandefo, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Sandefo, I.


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