Axillary Brachial Plexus Block Compared with Other Regional Anesthesia Techniques in Distal Upper Limb Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Several regional anesthesia (RA) techniques have been described for distal upper limb surgery. However, the best approach in terms of RA block success rate and safety is not well recognized. Objective: To assess and compare the surgical anesthesia and efficacy of axillary brachial plexus block with other RA techniques for hand and wrist surgery. The attainment of adequate surgical anesthesia 30 min after block placement was considered a primary outcome measure. Additionally, successful block outcomes were required without the use of supplemental local anesthetic injection, systemic opioid analgesia, or the need to convert to general anesthesia. Methods: We performed a systematic search in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CENTRAL. RCTs comparing axillary blocks with other brachial plexus block techniques, distal peripheral forearm nerve block, intravenous RA, and the wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) technique were included. Results: In total, 3070 records were reviewed, of which 28 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of adequate surgical anesthesia showed no significant difference between ultrasound-guided axillary block and supraclavicular block (RR: 0.94 [0.89, 1.00]; p = 0.06; I2 = 60.00%), but a statistically significant difference between ultrasound-guided axillary block and infraclavicular block (RR: 0.92 [0.88, 0.97]; p < 0.01; I2 = 53.00%). Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular blocks were performed faster than ultrasound-guided axillary blocks (SMD: 0.74 [0.30, 1.17]; p < 0.001; I2 = 85.00%). No differences in performance time between ultrasound-guided axillary and supraclavicular blocks were demonstrated. Additionally, adequate surgical anesthesia onset time was not significantly different between ultrasound-guided block approaches: ultrasound-guided axillary blocks versus ultrasound-guided supraclavicular blocks (SMD: 0.52 [-0.14, 1.17]; p = 0.12; I2 = 86.00%); ultrasound-guided axillary blocks versus ultrasound-guided infraclavicular blocks (SMD: 0.21 [-0.49, 0.91]; p = 0.55; I2 = 92.00%). Conclusions: The RA choice should be individualized depending on the patient, procedure, and operator-specific parameters. Compared to ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular block, ultrasound-guided axillary block may be preferred for patients with significant concerns of block-related side effects/complications. High heterogeneity between studies shows the need for more robust RCTs.

Serratus plane block versus standard of care for pain control after totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement: a double-blind, randomized controlled, superiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Serratus anterior plane block has been proposed to reduce opioid requirements after minimally invasive cardiac surgery, but high-quality evidence is lacking. METHODS: This prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial recruited patients undergoing totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement. Patients in the intervention arm received a single-injection serratus anterior plane block on arrival to the intensive care unit added to standard of care. Patients in the control group received routine standard of care, including patient-controlled intravenous analgesia. Primary outcome was piritramide consumption within the first 24 hours after serratus anterior plane block placement. We hypothesized that compared with no block, patients in the intervention arm would consume 25% less opioids. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were analyzed (n=38 in intervention arm, n=37 in control arm). When comparing the serratus anterior plane group with the control group, median 24-hour cumulative opioid use was 9 (IQR 6-19.5) vs 15 (IQR 11.3-23.3) morphine milligram equivalents, respectively (p<0.01). Also, pain scores at 4, 8 and 24 hours were lower in the intervention arm at 4, 8 and 24 hours, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combined deep and superficial single-injection serratus anterior plane block is superior to standard of care in reducing opioid requirements and postoperative pain intensity up to 24 hours after totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04699422.

The analgesic efficacy of forearm versus upper arm intravenous regional anesthesia (Bier's block): A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess if a forearm (FA) intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) with a lower, less toxic, local anesthetic dosage is non-inferior to an upper arm (UA) IVRA in providing a surgical block in patients undergoing hand and wrist surgery. DESIGN: Observer-blinded, randomized non-inferiority study. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: 280 patients undergoing hand surgery were randomly assigned to UA IVRA (n = 140) or FA IVRA (n = 140). INTERVENTIONS: Forearm IVRA or upper arm IVRA in patients undergoing hand and wrist surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was block success rate of both techniques. Block success was defined as no need of additional analgesics. A second, alternative non-inferiority outcome was defined as no need of conversion to general anesthesia. A difference in success rate of <5% was considered non-inferior. Secondary endpoints were tourniquet pain measured with a Numerical Rating Scale (0-10), satisfaction of patients and surgeons, onset time, surgical time and total OR time. MAIN RESULTS: Non-inferiority of block success rate, defined as no need of additional analgesics or conversion to general anesthesia was inconclusive (5.24%, 95% CI:-4.34%,+14.82%). Non-inferiority of no need of conversion to general anesthesia was confirmed (+0.73%, 95% CI:-0.69%,+2.15%). No differences were observed in onset time (FA: 5 (5, 8) vs UA: 6 (5, 7) min, p = 0.74), surgical time (FA: 8 (5, 12) vs UA: 7 (5, 11) min, p = 0.71), nor total OR stay time (FA: 34 (27, 41) vs UA: 35 (32, 39) min, p = 0.09). Tourniquet pain after 10 min was significantly lower after FA IVRA compared to UA IVRA (FA: 2.00 (0.00, 4.00) vs UA: 3.00 (1.00,5.00) min, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: We failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of forearm IVRA with a lower dosage of LA in providing a surgical block without rescue opioids and LA. Non-inferiority of no need of conversion to general anesthesia was confirmed.

Efficacy of ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block versus forearm intravenous regional anaesthesia in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Distal upper extremity surgery is commonly performed under regional anaesthesia, including intravenous regional anaesthesia (IVRA) and ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block. This study aimed to investigate if ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block is superior to forearm IVRA in producing a surgical block in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release. METHODS: In this observer-blinded, randomized controlled superiority trial, 100 patients undergoing carpal tunnel release were randomized to receive ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block (n = 50) or forearm IVRA (n = 50). The primary outcome was anaesthetic efficacy evaluated by classifying the blocks as complete vs incomplete. Complete anaesthesia was defined as total sensory block, incomplete anaesthesia as mild pain requiring more analgesics or need of general anaesthesia. Pain intensity on a numeric rating scale (0-10) was recorded. Surgeon satisfaction with hemostasis, surgical time, and OR stay time were recorded. Patient satisfaction with the quality of the block was assessed at POD 1. RESULTS: In total, 43 (86%) of the forearm nerve blocks were evaluated as complete, compared to 33 (66%) of the forearm IVRA (p = 0.019). After the forearm nerve block, pain intensity was lower at discharge (-1.76 points lower, 95% CI (-2.92, -0.59), p = 0.0006) compared to patients treated with forearm IVRA. No differences in pain experienced at the start of the surgery, during surgery, and at POD1, nor in surgical time or total OR stay were observed between groups. Surgeon (p = 0.0016) and patient satisfaction (p = 0.0023) were slightly higher after forearm nerve block. CONCLUSION: An ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block is superior compared to forearm IVRA in providing a surgical block in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered as NCT03411551.

The analgesic efficacy of intravenous regional anesthesia with a forearm versus conventional upper arm tourniquet: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The main objective of this review is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing evidence related to the analgesic efficacy with the use of conventional, upper arm intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) as compared to a modified, forearm IVRA in adult patients undergoing procedures on the distal upper extremity. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane) databases were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English, French, Dutch, German or Spanish language. Primary outcomes of interest including description of quality level of anesthesia and onset of sensory block were assessed for this review. Dosage of the local anesthetic, local anesthetic toxicity and need for sedation due to tourniquet pain were considered as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 3 papers for qualitative synthesis. Four other articles were added into a parallel analysis of 7 reports that provided data on the incidence of complications and success rate after forearm IVRA. Forearm IVRA was found to be as efficient as upper arm IVRA (RR = 0.98 [0.93, 1.05], P = 0.78), but comes with the advantage of a lower need for sedation due to less tourniquet pain. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that forearm IVRA is as effective in providing a surgical block as compared to a conventional upper arm IVRA, even with a reduced, non-toxic dosage of local anesthetic. No severe complications were associated with the use of a forearm IVRA. Other benefits of the modified technique include a faster onset of sensory block, better tourniquet tolerance and a dryer surgical field. REGISTRATION OF THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: A review protocol was published in the PROSPERO register in November 2015 with registration number CRD42015029536 .