Comparison of ultrasonography-guided lateral versus medial costoclavicular brachial plexus block in pediatric patients : A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Costoclavicular brachial plexus block is gaining popularity due to its ease of application. Lateral and medial costoclavicular approaches have recently been defined. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the procedural execution of these approaches in the pediatric population. METHODS: In this study 55 children aged between 2 and 10 years were randomized to receive lateral (LC group) or medial (MC group) costoclavicular brachial plexus block after induction of general anesthesia for postoperative analgesia. All patients received bupivacaine (1 mg/kg, 0.25%) within the center of the cord cluster. The number of needle maneuvers was recorded as primary outcome. Block performing features (ideal ultrasound-guided brachial plexus cords visualization, needle pathway planning time, needle tip and shaft visualization difficulty, requirement of extra needle maneuver due to insufficient local anesthetic distribution, block performance time, total procedure difficulty) and postoperative pain-related data (block intensities, pain scores and analgesic requirements) were all compared as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The LC group patients required less ultrasound visualization time (median 14 s, range 11-23 s vs. median 42 s, range 15-67 s, p < 0.001) and fewer needle maneuvers (median 1, range 1-2 vs. median 3, range 2-4, p < 0.001) compared to the MC group. Similarly, the median block performance duration was shorter (median 67 s, range 47-94 s vs. median 140s, 90-204 s, p < 0.01) and procedures were perceived as easier (median 4, range 4-5 vs. median 3, range 2-5, p = 0.04) in the LC group. All other parameters were comparable (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The lateral approach required less needle maneuvers than the medial approach. Both techniques represented a good safety profile with favorable analgesic features.

Comparison of Performance Characteristics and Efficacy of Bilateral Thoracic Paravertebral Blocks in Obese and Non-Obese Patients Undergoing Reduction Mammaplasty Surgery: A Historical Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although ultrasound (US)-guided regional anesthesia techniques are advantageous in the management of obese patients; the procedures can still be associated with technical difficulties and greater failure rates. The aim of this study is to compare the performance properties and analgesic efficacy of US-guided bilateral thoracic paravertebral blocks (TPVBs) in obese and non-obese patients. METHODS: Data of 82 patients, who underwent bilateral reduction mammaplasty under general anesthesia with adjunctive TPVB analgesia between December 2016 and February 2020, were reviewed. Patients were allocated into two groups with respect to their BMI scores (Group NO: BMI < 30 and Group O: BMI ≥ 30). Demographics, ideal US visualization time, total bilateral TPVB procedure time, needle tip visualization and performance difficulties, number of needle maneuvers, surgical, anesthetic and analgesic follow-up parameters, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), sleep duration, length of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and hospital stay, and patient/surgeon satisfaction scores were investigated. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients' data were complete. Ideal US visualization and total TPVB performance times were shorter, number of needle maneuvers were fewer and length of PACU stay was shorter in Group NO (p < 0.05). Postoperative pain scores were generally similar within first 24 h (p > 0.05). Time to postoperative pain, total analgesic requirements, incidence of PONV, sleep duration, length of hospital stay were comparable (p > 0.05). Satisfaction was slightly higher in Group NO (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: US-guided TPVB performances in obese patients might be more challenging and take longer time. However, it is still successful providing good acute pain control in patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 . TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04596787.