Comparison of the parasacral approach and the posterior approach, with single- and double-injection techniques, to block the sciatic nerve

The purpose of this study was to compare parasacral and Winnie's single- or double-injection approaches for sciatic nerve block. One hundred fifty adults scheduled to undergo lower limb surgery were randomized to receive on the sciatic nerve 20 ml ropivacaine, 0.75%: single bolus for parasacral...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Anesthesiology (Philadelphia) 2003-06, Vol.98 (6), p.1436-1441
Hauptverfasser: CUVILLON, Philippe, RIPART, Jacques, JEANNES, Pascal, MAHAMAT, Aba, BOISSON, Christophe, L'HERMITE, Joel, VERNES, Eric, DE LA COUSSAYE, Jean Emmanuel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1441
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1436
container_title Anesthesiology (Philadelphia)
container_volume 98
creator CUVILLON, Philippe
RIPART, Jacques
JEANNES, Pascal
MAHAMAT, Aba
BOISSON, Christophe
L'HERMITE, Joel
VERNES, Eric
DE LA COUSSAYE, Jean Emmanuel
description The purpose of this study was to compare parasacral and Winnie's single- or double-injection approaches for sciatic nerve block. One hundred fifty adults scheduled to undergo lower limb surgery were randomized to receive on the sciatic nerve 20 ml ropivacaine, 0.75%: single bolus for parasacral and Winnie's single injection. For Winnie's double injection, the peroneal and tibial nerves received separately 10 ml plus 10 ml. Blocks were performed with the use of nerve stimulator (intensity < 0.5 mA, 1 Hz). For the parasacral method, a line was drawn between the posterior superior iliac spine and the ischial tuberosity; needle entry was at 6 cm inferior to the posterior superior iliac spine. The groups were similar. Time to perform the block was 2 (1-5) min for the parasacral method, with no difference from Winnie's single injection (3 [1-10] min), but was shorter with double injection (5.5 [2-15] min) (P = 0.0001). Onset of sensory block was similar in the parasacral (25 [7.5-50] min) and Winnie single-injection groups (25 [5-50] min) but significantly longer in the double-injection group (15 [5-50] min). Success rates for complete block were similar in the parasacral (66%) and Winnie's double-injection groups (68%) after 30 min but higher in the Winnie's single-injection group for tibial sensory and motor block (48%) (P < 0.017). Time to perform a parasacral block was short, and the parasacral approach had a high success rate and a short onset time. Therefore, this block might be a useful alternative to Winnie's modification for sciatic nerve block.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00000542-200306000-00021
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73298760</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>73298760</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-307448e678c2352beb1b0ca468503dc6390f33ca8a2c39478267d5d601b6f4b93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFUclOBCEUJEbjjMsvGC56spWlWfpoJm7JJF703HlN0w5jTzMCo_EX_GqZRSUhULyqgkchhCm5oqRS12Q9RMkKRggnMoMiT0b30JgKpgtKldhH43zGC04YG6GjGOcZKsH1IRpRpqSUQozR98QvlhBc9AP2HU4zizOECCZAj2G5DB7MDMPQbms-JhucD3-lS_zp0gxHN7z2ttgQW79q8t4Nc2uSy8bJmtng3lc2XuLkcdN787axi8ZBcgYPNnzYE3TQQR_t6W49Ri93t8-Th2L6dP84uZkWhlc05X5UWWorlTaMC9bYhjbEQCm1ILw1klek49yABpYFpdJMqla0ktBGdmVT8WN0sfXNDazflOqFi8b2PQzWr2KtOKu0kiQT9ZZogo8x2K5eBreA8FVTUq9zqH9zqP9yqDc5ZOnZ7o5Vs7Dtv3D38ZlwviNANNB3AQbj4j-v1IIxXvIfn5WRKg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>73298760</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the parasacral approach and the posterior approach, with single- and double-injection techniques, to block the sciatic nerve</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>CUVILLON, Philippe ; RIPART, Jacques ; JEANNES, Pascal ; MAHAMAT, Aba ; BOISSON, Christophe ; L'HERMITE, Joel ; VERNES, Eric ; DE LA COUSSAYE, Jean Emmanuel</creator><creatorcontrib>CUVILLON, Philippe ; RIPART, Jacques ; JEANNES, Pascal ; MAHAMAT, Aba ; BOISSON, Christophe ; L'HERMITE, Joel ; VERNES, Eric ; DE LA COUSSAYE, Jean Emmanuel</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to compare parasacral and Winnie's single- or double-injection approaches for sciatic nerve block. One hundred fifty adults scheduled to undergo lower limb surgery were randomized to receive on the sciatic nerve 20 ml ropivacaine, 0.75%: single bolus for parasacral and Winnie's single injection. For Winnie's double injection, the peroneal and tibial nerves received separately 10 ml plus 10 ml. Blocks were performed with the use of nerve stimulator (intensity &lt; 0.5 mA, 1 Hz). For the parasacral method, a line was drawn between the posterior superior iliac spine and the ischial tuberosity; needle entry was at 6 cm inferior to the posterior superior iliac spine. The groups were similar. Time to perform the block was 2 (1-5) min for the parasacral method, with no difference from Winnie's single injection (3 [1-10] min), but was shorter with double injection (5.5 [2-15] min) (P = 0.0001). Onset of sensory block was similar in the parasacral (25 [7.5-50] min) and Winnie single-injection groups (25 [5-50] min) but significantly longer in the double-injection group (15 [5-50] min). Success rates for complete block were similar in the parasacral (66%) and Winnie's double-injection groups (68%) after 30 min but higher in the Winnie's single-injection group for tibial sensory and motor block (48%) (P &lt; 0.017). Time to perform a parasacral block was short, and the parasacral approach had a high success rate and a short onset time. Therefore, this block might be a useful alternative to Winnie's modification for sciatic nerve block.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-3022</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1175</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200306000-00021</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12766655</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ANESAV</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Amides ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy ; Anesthetics, Local ; Biological and medical sciences ; Female ; Humans ; Ilium ; Leg - surgery ; Local anesthesia. Pain (treatment) ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Nerve Block - methods ; Neuromuscular Blockade ; Pain Measurement ; Peroneal Nerve ; Preanesthetic Medication ; Ropivacaine ; Sciatic Nerve - anatomy &amp; histology ; Tibial Nerve</subject><ispartof>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia), 2003-06, Vol.98 (6), p.1436-1441</ispartof><rights>2003 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-307448e678c2352beb1b0ca468503dc6390f33ca8a2c39478267d5d601b6f4b93</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=14852234$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12766655$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>CUVILLON, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RIPART, Jacques</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JEANNES, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAHAMAT, Aba</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOISSON, Christophe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>L'HERMITE, Joel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>VERNES, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DE LA COUSSAYE, Jean Emmanuel</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the parasacral approach and the posterior approach, with single- and double-injection techniques, to block the sciatic nerve</title><title>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia)</title><addtitle>Anesthesiology</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study was to compare parasacral and Winnie's single- or double-injection approaches for sciatic nerve block. One hundred fifty adults scheduled to undergo lower limb surgery were randomized to receive on the sciatic nerve 20 ml ropivacaine, 0.75%: single bolus for parasacral and Winnie's single injection. For Winnie's double injection, the peroneal and tibial nerves received separately 10 ml plus 10 ml. Blocks were performed with the use of nerve stimulator (intensity &lt; 0.5 mA, 1 Hz). For the parasacral method, a line was drawn between the posterior superior iliac spine and the ischial tuberosity; needle entry was at 6 cm inferior to the posterior superior iliac spine. The groups were similar. Time to perform the block was 2 (1-5) min for the parasacral method, with no difference from Winnie's single injection (3 [1-10] min), but was shorter with double injection (5.5 [2-15] min) (P = 0.0001). Onset of sensory block was similar in the parasacral (25 [7.5-50] min) and Winnie single-injection groups (25 [5-50] min) but significantly longer in the double-injection group (15 [5-50] min). Success rates for complete block were similar in the parasacral (66%) and Winnie's double-injection groups (68%) after 30 min but higher in the Winnie's single-injection group for tibial sensory and motor block (48%) (P &lt; 0.017). Time to perform a parasacral block was short, and the parasacral approach had a high success rate and a short onset time. Therefore, this block might be a useful alternative to Winnie's modification for sciatic nerve block.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Amides</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Local</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Ilium</subject><subject>Leg - surgery</subject><subject>Local anesthesia. Pain (treatment)</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nerve Block - methods</subject><subject>Neuromuscular Blockade</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Peroneal Nerve</subject><subject>Preanesthetic Medication</subject><subject>Ropivacaine</subject><subject>Sciatic Nerve - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Tibial Nerve</subject><issn>0003-3022</issn><issn>1528-1175</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFUclOBCEUJEbjjMsvGC56spWlWfpoJm7JJF703HlN0w5jTzMCo_EX_GqZRSUhULyqgkchhCm5oqRS12Q9RMkKRggnMoMiT0b30JgKpgtKldhH43zGC04YG6GjGOcZKsH1IRpRpqSUQozR98QvlhBc9AP2HU4zizOECCZAj2G5DB7MDMPQbms-JhucD3-lS_zp0gxHN7z2ttgQW79q8t4Nc2uSy8bJmtng3lc2XuLkcdN787axi8ZBcgYPNnzYE3TQQR_t6W49Ri93t8-Th2L6dP84uZkWhlc05X5UWWorlTaMC9bYhjbEQCm1ILw1klek49yABpYFpdJMqla0ktBGdmVT8WN0sfXNDazflOqFi8b2PQzWr2KtOKu0kiQT9ZZogo8x2K5eBreA8FVTUq9zqH9zqP9yqDc5ZOnZ7o5Vs7Dtv3D38ZlwviNANNB3AQbj4j-v1IIxXvIfn5WRKg</recordid><startdate>20030601</startdate><enddate>20030601</enddate><creator>CUVILLON, Philippe</creator><creator>RIPART, Jacques</creator><creator>JEANNES, Pascal</creator><creator>MAHAMAT, Aba</creator><creator>BOISSON, Christophe</creator><creator>L'HERMITE, Joel</creator><creator>VERNES, Eric</creator><creator>DE LA COUSSAYE, Jean Emmanuel</creator><general>Lippincott</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030601</creationdate><title>Comparison of the parasacral approach and the posterior approach, with single- and double-injection techniques, to block the sciatic nerve</title><author>CUVILLON, Philippe ; RIPART, Jacques ; JEANNES, Pascal ; MAHAMAT, Aba ; BOISSON, Christophe ; L'HERMITE, Joel ; VERNES, Eric ; DE LA COUSSAYE, Jean Emmanuel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-307448e678c2352beb1b0ca468503dc6390f33ca8a2c39478267d5d601b6f4b93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Amides</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Local</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Ilium</topic><topic>Leg - surgery</topic><topic>Local anesthesia. Pain (treatment)</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nerve Block - methods</topic><topic>Neuromuscular Blockade</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Peroneal Nerve</topic><topic>Preanesthetic Medication</topic><topic>Ropivacaine</topic><topic>Sciatic Nerve - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Tibial Nerve</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>CUVILLON, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RIPART, Jacques</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JEANNES, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAHAMAT, Aba</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOISSON, Christophe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>L'HERMITE, Joel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>VERNES, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DE LA COUSSAYE, Jean Emmanuel</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>CUVILLON, Philippe</au><au>RIPART, Jacques</au><au>JEANNES, Pascal</au><au>MAHAMAT, Aba</au><au>BOISSON, Christophe</au><au>L'HERMITE, Joel</au><au>VERNES, Eric</au><au>DE LA COUSSAYE, Jean Emmanuel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the parasacral approach and the posterior approach, with single- and double-injection techniques, to block the sciatic nerve</atitle><jtitle>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia)</jtitle><addtitle>Anesthesiology</addtitle><date>2003-06-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>98</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1436</spage><epage>1441</epage><pages>1436-1441</pages><issn>0003-3022</issn><eissn>1528-1175</eissn><coden>ANESAV</coden><abstract>The purpose of this study was to compare parasacral and Winnie's single- or double-injection approaches for sciatic nerve block. One hundred fifty adults scheduled to undergo lower limb surgery were randomized to receive on the sciatic nerve 20 ml ropivacaine, 0.75%: single bolus for parasacral and Winnie's single injection. For Winnie's double injection, the peroneal and tibial nerves received separately 10 ml plus 10 ml. Blocks were performed with the use of nerve stimulator (intensity &lt; 0.5 mA, 1 Hz). For the parasacral method, a line was drawn between the posterior superior iliac spine and the ischial tuberosity; needle entry was at 6 cm inferior to the posterior superior iliac spine. The groups were similar. Time to perform the block was 2 (1-5) min for the parasacral method, with no difference from Winnie's single injection (3 [1-10] min), but was shorter with double injection (5.5 [2-15] min) (P = 0.0001). Onset of sensory block was similar in the parasacral (25 [7.5-50] min) and Winnie single-injection groups (25 [5-50] min) but significantly longer in the double-injection group (15 [5-50] min). Success rates for complete block were similar in the parasacral (66%) and Winnie's double-injection groups (68%) after 30 min but higher in the Winnie's single-injection group for tibial sensory and motor block (48%) (P &lt; 0.017). Time to perform a parasacral block was short, and the parasacral approach had a high success rate and a short onset time. Therefore, this block might be a useful alternative to Winnie's modification for sciatic nerve block.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott</pub><pmid>12766655</pmid><doi>10.1097/00000542-200306000-00021</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-3022
ispartof Anesthesiology (Philadelphia), 2003-06, Vol.98 (6), p.1436-1441
issn 0003-3022
1528-1175
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73298760
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Amides
Anesthesia
Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy
Anesthetics, Local
Biological and medical sciences
Female
Humans
Ilium
Leg - surgery
Local anesthesia. Pain (treatment)
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Nerve Block - methods
Neuromuscular Blockade
Pain Measurement
Peroneal Nerve
Preanesthetic Medication
Ropivacaine
Sciatic Nerve - anatomy & histology
Tibial Nerve
title Comparison of the parasacral approach and the posterior approach, with single- and double-injection techniques, to block the sciatic nerve
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T23%3A12%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20parasacral%20approach%20and%20the%20posterior%20approach,%20with%20single-%20and%20double-injection%20techniques,%20to%20block%20the%20sciatic%20nerve&rft.jtitle=Anesthesiology%20(Philadelphia)&rft.au=CUVILLON,%20Philippe&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=98&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1436&rft.epage=1441&rft.pages=1436-1441&rft.issn=0003-3022&rft.eissn=1528-1175&rft.coden=ANESAV&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00000542-200306000-00021&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E73298760%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=73298760&rft_id=info:pmid/12766655&rfr_iscdi=true