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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Anesthesiology (Philadelphia) 2003-06, Vol.98 (6), p.1436-1441 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
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 < 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.</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 & 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&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 < 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.</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 & 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 & 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 < 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.</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 |