The role of electrical stimulation in ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block: a retrospective study on how response pattern and minimal evoked current affect the resultant blockade.

PURPOSE: Nerve stimulation may be combined with ultrasound imaging for a block of deeply located nerves such as the sciatic nerve in the subgluteal region. At present, it is unknown how the use of nerve stimulation affects blockade after this nerve block. We retrospectively compared the effects of the two types of motor response and those of minimal evoked current above and below 0.5 mA on ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block using mepivacaine or ropivacaine, two local anesthetics with different onset time and duration. METHODS: We reviewed records and video images of patients who, from April 2008 until October 2011, received ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block combined with nerve stimulation using 20 ml of either 1.5 % mepivacaine with 1:400,000 epinephrine or 0.5 % ropivacaine. Sensory and motor blockade data for 30 min after the block and for the duration of the blockade were gathered. Patients for whom any data were missing, the video image was poor, and/or intraneural injection was observed during the block were excluded from the study. The same data were compared in two ways: regarding the motor response pattern between the response of the tibial nerve and the common peroneal nerve, and regarding the minimal current between low current (< 0.5 mA) and high current (≥0.5 mA). The primary endpoints were the onset and duration of blockade of the sciatic nerve block. RESULTS: We analyzed the data of 170 and 99 patients who received mepivacaine and ropivacaine, respectively. The progress of sensory and motor blockade as well as block duration was similar between different motor response patterns after both anesthetics. The proportion of patients who developed sensory block of the tibial nerve and motor block at 30 min was higher in the low minimal current group than in the other group receiving mepivacaine. Patients in the former group also had longer block duration. With ropivacaine, complete motor blockade was present at 30 min in a higher proportion of patients after lower minimal evoked current than after higher minimal evoked current. CONCLUSION: When ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block was conducted with nerve stimulation, the motor response pattern did not markedly affect the progress of sensory or motor blockade or block duration. Lower minimal evoked current was associated with faster onset in sensory and motor block and longer block duration after mepivacaine and faster onset in motor block after ropivacaine. The clinical significance of this, however, has yet to be determined.

Incidence and effects of unintentional intraneural injection during ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block.

BACKGROUND: The present study was conducted to determine the incidence of unintentional intraneural injection during ultrasound-guided subgluteal sciatic nerve block using a low-frequency transducer. We also observed the effects of intraneural injection using ropivacaine and mepivacaine. METHODS: Enrolled in the study were 325 patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery, who each received a subgluteal sciatic nerve block under ultrasound guidance using 1.5% mepivacaine with 1:400,000 epinephrine or 0.5% ropivacaine. A block needle was inserted in-plane with the ultrasound transducer (5-2 MHz curved array) and advanced slowly under real-time ultrasound guidance until it was positioned immediately adjacent to the nerve. Twenty milliliters of either anesthetic was then injected to produce a circumferential spread. An ultrasound video was recorded and used to examine whether the local anesthetic was injected intraneurally. Sensory and motor blockade was evaluated for 30 mins after completion of the block. Duration of the block and any neurologic complications were also examined. RESULTS: Intraneural injection was detected in 46 patients (16.3%; 95% confidence interval, 12.3%-20.3%). Onset of sensory and motor blockade was significantly faster in patients with intraneural injection than those without either mepivacaine or ropivacaine. Duration of sensory blockade was similar between patients with and without intraneural injection. No patient developed postoperative neurologic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Unintentional intraneural injection occurred at an incidence rate of 16.3% for the ultrasound-guided subgluteal approach to the sciatic nerve. Intraneural injection of mepivacaine or ropivacaine hastened the onset of blockade but did not affect block duration, and it did not result in clinical neural injury in our small sample of patients.

Sevoflurane requirements to suppress responses to transcutaneous electrical stimulation during epidural anesthesia with 0.5% and 1% lidocaine.

UNLABELLED: We sought to determine general anesthetic requirements to suppress skin vasomotor reflex (SVmR) and pupillary dilation (PD) in response to transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) during combined epidural-general anesthesia. Thirty-five patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery were randomly divided into 2 groups to epidurally receive 0.5% (Group 1) or 1% lidocaine (Group 2) with sevoflurane anesthesia. A bolus injection of either lidocaine was followed by the infusion of the same solution, and the central dermatomal level of loss of cold sensation (C) was determined. After the induction of general anesthesia with 5% sevoflurane and 67% nitrous oxide, nitrous oxide was discontinued, and sevoflurane concentration was decreased. TES was given at both site C and site three dermatomal segments (U) cephalad to C to determine the end-tidal sevoflurane concentration required to suppress SVmR and PD. End-tidal sevoflurane concentration that suppressed both responses was larger in Group 1 than in Group 2 at both sites and was larger at site U than at site C in both groups. We conclude that sevoflurane requirements to suppress SVmR and PD in response to TES during combined epidural-general anesthesia are different depending on the concentration of lidocaine and the site where surgical stimulation is applied. IMPLICATIONS: We evaluated sevoflurane requirements to suppress skin vasomotor reflex and pupillary dilation in response to a transcutaneous electrical stimulation at the surgical site during combined epidural-general anesthesia. Our results indicate that when epidural anesthesia is combined, general anesthetic requirements decrease depending on the lidocaine concentration for epidural anesthesia and the site where surgical stimulation is applied.