ABSTRACT
<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>The use of traditional techniques (such as landmark techniques, paresthesia and peripheral nerve stimulator) for upper-limb anesthesia has often been restricted to the expert or enthusiast, which was blind. Recently, ultrasound (US) has been applied to differ blood vessel, pleura and nerve, thus may reduce the risk of complications while have a high rate of success. The aim of this study was to determine if the use of ultrasound guidance (vs. peripheral nerve stimulator, (PNS)) decreases risk of vascular puncture, risk of hemi-diaphragmatic paresis and risk of Horner syndrome and improves the success rate of nerve block.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A search strategy was developed to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting on complications of US and PNS guidance for upper-extremity peripheral nerve blocks (brachial plexus) in adults available through PubMed databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase databases, SinoMed databases and Wanfang data (date up to 2011-12-20). Two independent reviewers appraised eligible studies and extracted data. Risk ratios (OR) were calculated for each outcome and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with the software of Review Manager 5.1.0 System (Cochrane Library).</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Sixteen trials involving 1321 adults met our criteria were included for analysis. Blocks performed using US guidance were more likely to be successful (risk ratio (RR) for block success 0.36, 95%CI 0.23 - 0.56, P < 0.00001), decreased incidence of vascular puncture during block performance (RR 0.13, 95%CI 0.06 - 0.27, P < 0.00001), decreased the risk of complete hemi-diaphragmatic paresis (RR 0.09, 95%CI 0.03 - 0.52, P = 0.0001).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>US decreases risks of complete hemi-diaphragmatic paresis or vascular puncture and improves success rate of brachial plexus nerve block compared with techniques that utilize PNS for nerve localization. Larger studies are needed to determine whether or not the use of US can decrease risk of neurologic complications.</p>
Subject(s)
Humans , Brachial Plexus , Nerve Block , Methods , Peripheral Nerves , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Ultrasonography, Interventional , MethodsABSTRACT
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical results between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar(mini-TLIF) and posterior open surgery in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.MethodsFrom March 2008 to August 2010,a total of 49 cases with lumbar spondylolisthesis underwent surgical intervention were retrospectively analyzed,including 23 cases with mini-TLIF and 26 with open surgery.Operation time,intra-operative bleeding,and radiation exposure times were recorded.Pre- and postoperative back pain was assessed by visual analogue scale(VAS),and lumbar function was evaluated by Oswestry disability index (ODI).The clinical results were assessed by Macnab criterion,and the pre and postoperative radiologic parameters were compared.ResultsThe mean follow-up time was 11 months(ranged,9-22).Both groups got good clinical results and satisfactory radiologic parameters.The group of mini-TLIF was superior to the group of open surgery in intra-operative bleeding,VAS of the second day postoperatively and the willingness of reoperation(P＜0.05).The ODI in the patients with open surgery were decreased from 31.2％±8.2％ to 16.1％±6.8％ corresponding to the pre-oporation and the final follow-up.The ODI in the patients with mini-TLIF were decreased from 34.4％±11.7％ to 15.3％±4.3％ corresponding to the pre-operation and the final follow-up.There is no significant difference of the change of ODI between two groups (t=0.673,P=0.412).The group of mini-TLIF need more operation time and were exposed to more X-ray when compared to the open surgery group(P＜0.05).ConclusionMini-TLIF and open surgery can both get satisfactory clinical outcomes in treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis.Mini-TLIF was superior to open surgery in intra-operative bleeding and VAS of the second day postoperatively,but it needs more operation time and radiation exposure.