Leurcharusmee Prangmalee, Aliste Julian, Van Zundert Tom C R V, Engsusophon Phatthanaphol, Arnuntasupakul Vanlapa, Tiyaprasertkul Worakamol, Tangjitbampenbun Amornrat, Ah-Kye Sonia, Finlayson Roderick J, Tran De Q H
From the *Department of Anesthesia, Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand; †Department of Anesthesia, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; and ‡Department of Anesthesia, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016 May-Jun;41(3):328-33. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000386.
This multicenter, randomized trial compared intravenous (IV) and perineural (PN) dexamethasone for ultrasound (US)-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block. Our research hypothesis was both modalities would result in similar durations of motor block.
One hundred fifty patients undergoing upper limb surgery with US-guided infraclavicular block were randomly allocated to receive IV or PN dexamethasone (5 mg). The local anesthetic agent (35 mL of lidocaine 1%-bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 μg/mL) was identical in all subjects. Patients and operators were blinded to the nature of IV and PN injectates. During the performance of the block, the performance time, number of needle passes, procedural pain, and complications (vascular puncture, paresthesia) were recorded.Subsequently, a blinded observer assessed the success rate (defined as a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 of 16 points at 30 minutes), onset time as well as the incidence of surgical anesthesia (defined as the ability to complete surgery without local infiltration, supplemental blocks, IV opioids, or general anesthesia). Postoperatively (at 24 hours), the blinded observer contacted patients with successful blocks to enquire about the duration of motor block, sensory block, and postoperative analgesia. The main outcome variable was the duration of motor block.
No intergroup differences were observed in terms of technical execution (performance time/number of needle passes/procedural pain/complications), onset time, success rate, and surgical anesthesia. However, compared to its IV counterpart, PN dexamethasone provided 19% to 22% longer durations for motor block (15.7 ± 6.2 vs 12.9 ± 5.5 hours; P = 0.009), sensory block (16.8 ± 4.4 vs 13.9 ± 5.4 hours; P = 0.002), and postoperative analgesia (22.1 ± 8.5 vs 18.6 ± 6.7 hours; P = 0.014).
Compared with its IV counterpart, PN dexamethasone (5 mg) provides a longer duration of motor block, sensory block, and postoperative analgesia for US-guided infraclavicular block. Future dose-finding studies are required to elucidate the optimal dose of dexamethasone.
本多中心随机试验比较了静脉注射(IV)和神经周围注射(PN)地塞米松用于超声(US)引导下锁骨下臂丛神经阻滞的效果。我们的研究假设是两种方式导致的运动阻滞持续时间相似。
150例接受上肢手术并采用US引导下锁骨下阻滞的患者被随机分配接受IV或PN地塞米松(5毫克)。所有受试者使用的局部麻醉剂(35毫升1%利多卡因-0.25%布比卡因加5微克/毫升肾上腺素)相同。患者和操作人员对IV和PN注射剂的性质不知情。在进行阻滞过程中,记录操作时间、进针次数、操作疼痛和并发症(血管穿刺、感觉异常)。随后,一名不知情的观察者评估成功率(定义为30分钟时最小感觉运动综合评分为16分中的14分)、起效时间以及手术麻醉发生率(定义为无需局部浸润、补充阻滞、静脉注射阿片类药物或全身麻醉即可完成手术的能力)。术后(24小时),不知情的观察者联系阻滞成功的患者,询问运动阻滞、感觉阻滞和术后镇痛的持续时间。主要结局变量是运动阻滞的持续时间。
在技术操作(操作时间/进针次数/操作疼痛/并发症)、起效时间、成功率和手术麻醉方面未观察到组间差异。然而,与IV组相比,PN地塞米松使运动阻滞(15.7±6.2小时对12.9±5.5小时;P = 0.009)、感觉阻滞(16.8±4.4小时对13.9±5.4小时;P = 0.002)和术后镇痛(22.1±8.�小时对18.6±6.7小时;P = 0.014)的持续时间延长了19%至22%。
与IV组相比,PN地塞米松(5毫克)用于US引导下锁骨下阻滞时,运动阻滞、感觉阻滞和术后镇痛的持续时间更长。未来需要进行剂量探索研究以阐明地塞米松的最佳剂量。