Comparison of Three Techniques for Ultrasound-guided Femoral Nerve Catheter Insertion: A Randomized, Blinded Trial
BACKGROUND:Ultrasound guidance for continuous femoral perineural catheters may be supplemented by electrical stimulation through a needle or through a stimulating catheter. The authors tested the primary hypothesis that ultrasound guidance alone is noninferior on both postoperative pain scores and o...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Anesthesiology (Philadelphia) 2014-08, Vol.121 (2), p.239-248 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 248 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 239 |
container_title | Anesthesiology (Philadelphia) |
container_volume | 121 |
creator | Farag, Ehab Atim, Abdulkadir Ghosh, Raktim Bauer, Maria Sreenivasalu, Thilak Kot, Michael Kurz, Andrea Dalton, Jarrod E Mascha, Edward J Mounir-Soliman, Loran Zaky, Sherif Ali Sakr Esa, Wael Udeh, Belinda L Barsoum, Wael Sessler, Daniel I |
description | BACKGROUND:Ultrasound guidance for continuous femoral perineural catheters may be supplemented by electrical stimulation through a needle or through a stimulating catheter. The authors tested the primary hypothesis that ultrasound guidance alone is noninferior on both postoperative pain scores and opioid requirement and superior on at least one of the two. Second, the authors compared all interventions on insertion time and incremental cost.
METHODS:Patients having knee arthroplasty with femoral nerve catheters were randomly assigned to catheter insertion guided by(1) ultrasound alone (n = 147); (2) ultrasound and electrical stimulation through the needle (n = 152); or (3) ultrasound and electrical stimulation through both the needle and catheter (n = 138). Noninferiority between any two interventions was defined for pain as not more than 0.5 points worse on a 0 to 10 verbal response scale and for opioid consumption as not more than 25% greater than the mean.
RESULTS:The stimulating needle group was significantly noninferior to the stimulating catheter group (difference [95% CI] in mean verbal response scale pain score [stimulating needle vs. stimulating catheter] of −0.16 [−0.61 to 0.29], P < 0.001; percentage difference in mean IV morphine equivalent dose of −5% [−25 to 21%], P = 0.002) and to ultrasound-only group (difference in mean verbal response scale pain score of −0.28 [−0.72 to 0.16], P < 0.001; percentage difference in mean IV morphine equivalent dose of −2% [−22 to 25%], P = 0.006). In addition, the use of ultrasound alone for femoral nerve catheter insertion was faster and cheaper than the other two methods.
CONCLUSION:Ultrasound guidance alone without adding either stimulating needle or needle/catheter combination thus seems to be the best approach to femoral perineural catheters. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000262 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4110116</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1548635480</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4813-a947bd315fd97af5516b2b18727062c37cc413cad1009ab8b402db1ee15fd3383</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUVtv0zAUthCIdYN_gJBfkHhYhm-JEx6QSsVgUjUk1D1bjnOyGBy7s5NN8Otx1TIKluyjY38X2x9Cryi5oKSR75br6wtyPFjFnqAFLVldUCrLp2iRN3nBCWMn6DSl77mVJa-foxMmZFlLWS5QXIVxq6NNwePQ480QAfAGzODt3QwJ9yHiGzdFncLsu-J2th10-BLGELXD1xDvAa_0NMAEEV_5BHGywb_HS_xN-y6M9hd05_ijs37H20Sr3Qv0rNcuwctDPUM3l582qy_F-uvnq9VyXRhRU17oRsi247Tsu0bqvixp1bKW1pJJUjHDpTGCcqM7Skij27oVhHUtBdgxOK_5Gfqw193O7QidAZ-f4dQ22lHHnypoq_498XZQt-FeCUoJpVUWeHsQiGH3GZMabTLgnPYQ5qRoKeqK54VkqNhDTQwpRegfbShRu7hUjkv9H1emvT6-4iPpTz4Z8OYA0Mlo10ftjU1_cXXVMMaP_B-Cy0mkH25-gKgG0G4a9r6lYAUjVJA6N0WelPPfXXut8g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1548635480</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Three Techniques for Ultrasound-guided Femoral Nerve Catheter Insertion: A Randomized, Blinded Trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Farag, Ehab ; Atim, Abdulkadir ; Ghosh, Raktim ; Bauer, Maria ; Sreenivasalu, Thilak ; Kot, Michael ; Kurz, Andrea ; Dalton, Jarrod E ; Mascha, Edward J ; Mounir-Soliman, Loran ; Zaky, Sherif ; Ali Sakr Esa, Wael ; Udeh, Belinda L ; Barsoum, Wael ; Sessler, Daniel I</creator><creatorcontrib>Farag, Ehab ; Atim, Abdulkadir ; Ghosh, Raktim ; Bauer, Maria ; Sreenivasalu, Thilak ; Kot, Michael ; Kurz, Andrea ; Dalton, Jarrod E ; Mascha, Edward J ; Mounir-Soliman, Loran ; Zaky, Sherif ; Ali Sakr Esa, Wael ; Udeh, Belinda L ; Barsoum, Wael ; Sessler, Daniel I</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND:Ultrasound guidance for continuous femoral perineural catheters may be supplemented by electrical stimulation through a needle or through a stimulating catheter. The authors tested the primary hypothesis that ultrasound guidance alone is noninferior on both postoperative pain scores and opioid requirement and superior on at least one of the two. Second, the authors compared all interventions on insertion time and incremental cost.
METHODS:Patients having knee arthroplasty with femoral nerve catheters were randomly assigned to catheter insertion guided by(1) ultrasound alone (n = 147); (2) ultrasound and electrical stimulation through the needle (n = 152); or (3) ultrasound and electrical stimulation through both the needle and catheter (n = 138). Noninferiority between any two interventions was defined for pain as not more than 0.5 points worse on a 0 to 10 verbal response scale and for opioid consumption as not more than 25% greater than the mean.
RESULTS:The stimulating needle group was significantly noninferior to the stimulating catheter group (difference [95% CI] in mean verbal response scale pain score [stimulating needle vs. stimulating catheter] of −0.16 [−0.61 to 0.29], P < 0.001; percentage difference in mean IV morphine equivalent dose of −5% [−25 to 21%], P = 0.002) and to ultrasound-only group (difference in mean verbal response scale pain score of −0.28 [−0.72 to 0.16], P < 0.001; percentage difference in mean IV morphine equivalent dose of −2% [−22 to 25%], P = 0.006). In addition, the use of ultrasound alone for femoral nerve catheter insertion was faster and cheaper than the other two methods.
CONCLUSION:Ultrasound guidance alone without adding either stimulating needle or needle/catheter combination thus seems to be the best approach to femoral perineural catheters.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-3022</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1528-1175</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000262</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24758775</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ANESAV</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Analgesics, Opioid - administration & dosage ; Analgesics, Opioid - therapeutic use ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods ; Biological and medical sciences ; Catheterization - economics ; Catheterization - methods ; Cost Control ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Electric Stimulation ; Female ; Femoral Nerve - diagnostic imaging ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Morphine - administration & dosage ; Morphine - therapeutic use ; Needles ; Nerve Block - economics ; Nerve Block - methods ; Pain Management ; Pain Measurement - drug effects ; Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control ; Sample Size ; Treatment Outcome ; Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia), 2014-08, Vol.121 (2), p.239-248</ispartof><rights>2014 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4813-a947bd315fd97af5516b2b18727062c37cc413cad1009ab8b402db1ee15fd3383</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28692230$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24758775$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Farag, Ehab</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atim, Abdulkadir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghosh, Raktim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauer, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sreenivasalu, Thilak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kot, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurz, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalton, Jarrod E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mascha, Edward J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mounir-Soliman, Loran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaky, Sherif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ali Sakr Esa, Wael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Udeh, Belinda L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barsoum, Wael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sessler, Daniel I</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Three Techniques for Ultrasound-guided Femoral Nerve Catheter Insertion: A Randomized, Blinded Trial</title><title>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia)</title><addtitle>Anesthesiology</addtitle><description>BACKGROUND:Ultrasound guidance for continuous femoral perineural catheters may be supplemented by electrical stimulation through a needle or through a stimulating catheter. The authors tested the primary hypothesis that ultrasound guidance alone is noninferior on both postoperative pain scores and opioid requirement and superior on at least one of the two. Second, the authors compared all interventions on insertion time and incremental cost.
METHODS:Patients having knee arthroplasty with femoral nerve catheters were randomly assigned to catheter insertion guided by(1) ultrasound alone (n = 147); (2) ultrasound and electrical stimulation through the needle (n = 152); or (3) ultrasound and electrical stimulation through both the needle and catheter (n = 138). Noninferiority between any two interventions was defined for pain as not more than 0.5 points worse on a 0 to 10 verbal response scale and for opioid consumption as not more than 25% greater than the mean.
RESULTS:The stimulating needle group was significantly noninferior to the stimulating catheter group (difference [95% CI] in mean verbal response scale pain score [stimulating needle vs. stimulating catheter] of −0.16 [−0.61 to 0.29], P < 0.001; percentage difference in mean IV morphine equivalent dose of −5% [−25 to 21%], P = 0.002) and to ultrasound-only group (difference in mean verbal response scale pain score of −0.28 [−0.72 to 0.16], P < 0.001; percentage difference in mean IV morphine equivalent dose of −2% [−22 to 25%], P = 0.006). In addition, the use of ultrasound alone for femoral nerve catheter insertion was faster and cheaper than the other two methods.
CONCLUSION:Ultrasound guidance alone without adding either stimulating needle or needle/catheter combination thus seems to be the best approach to femoral perineural catheters.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Analgesics, Opioid - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Analgesics, Opioid - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Catheterization - economics</subject><subject>Catheterization - methods</subject><subject>Cost Control</subject><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>Electric Stimulation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Femoral Nerve - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Morphine - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Morphine - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Needles</subject><subject>Nerve Block - economics</subject><subject>Nerve Block - methods</subject><subject>Pain Management</subject><subject>Pain Measurement - drug effects</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control</subject><subject>Sample Size</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0003-3022</issn><issn>1528-1175</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUVtv0zAUthCIdYN_gJBfkHhYhm-JEx6QSsVgUjUk1D1bjnOyGBy7s5NN8Otx1TIKluyjY38X2x9Cryi5oKSR75br6wtyPFjFnqAFLVldUCrLp2iRN3nBCWMn6DSl77mVJa-foxMmZFlLWS5QXIVxq6NNwePQ480QAfAGzODt3QwJ9yHiGzdFncLsu-J2th10-BLGELXD1xDvAa_0NMAEEV_5BHGywb_HS_xN-y6M9hd05_ijs37H20Sr3Qv0rNcuwctDPUM3l582qy_F-uvnq9VyXRhRU17oRsi247Tsu0bqvixp1bKW1pJJUjHDpTGCcqM7Skij27oVhHUtBdgxOK_5Gfqw193O7QidAZ-f4dQ22lHHnypoq_498XZQt-FeCUoJpVUWeHsQiGH3GZMabTLgnPYQ5qRoKeqK54VkqNhDTQwpRegfbShRu7hUjkv9H1emvT6-4iPpTz4Z8OYA0Mlo10ftjU1_cXXVMMaP_B-Cy0mkH25-gKgG0G4a9r6lYAUjVJA6N0WelPPfXXut8g</recordid><startdate>201408</startdate><enddate>201408</enddate><creator>Farag, Ehab</creator><creator>Atim, Abdulkadir</creator><creator>Ghosh, Raktim</creator><creator>Bauer, Maria</creator><creator>Sreenivasalu, Thilak</creator><creator>Kot, Michael</creator><creator>Kurz, Andrea</creator><creator>Dalton, Jarrod E</creator><creator>Mascha, Edward J</creator><creator>Mounir-Soliman, Loran</creator><creator>Zaky, Sherif</creator><creator>Ali Sakr Esa, Wael</creator><creator>Udeh, Belinda L</creator><creator>Barsoum, Wael</creator><creator>Sessler, Daniel I</creator><general>American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc</general><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</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><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201408</creationdate><title>Comparison of Three Techniques for Ultrasound-guided Femoral Nerve Catheter Insertion: A Randomized, Blinded Trial</title><author>Farag, Ehab ; Atim, Abdulkadir ; Ghosh, Raktim ; Bauer, Maria ; Sreenivasalu, Thilak ; Kot, Michael ; Kurz, Andrea ; Dalton, Jarrod E ; Mascha, Edward J ; Mounir-Soliman, Loran ; Zaky, Sherif ; Ali Sakr Esa, Wael ; Udeh, Belinda L ; Barsoum, Wael ; Sessler, Daniel I</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4813-a947bd315fd97af5516b2b18727062c37cc413cad1009ab8b402db1ee15fd3383</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Analgesics, Opioid - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Analgesics, Opioid - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Catheterization - economics</topic><topic>Catheterization - methods</topic><topic>Cost Control</topic><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>Electric Stimulation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Femoral Nerve - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Morphine - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Morphine - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Needles</topic><topic>Nerve Block - economics</topic><topic>Nerve Block - methods</topic><topic>Pain Management</topic><topic>Pain Measurement - drug effects</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control</topic><topic>Sample Size</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Farag, Ehab</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atim, Abdulkadir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghosh, Raktim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauer, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sreenivasalu, Thilak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kot, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurz, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dalton, Jarrod E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mascha, Edward J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mounir-Soliman, Loran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaky, Sherif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ali Sakr Esa, Wael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Udeh, Belinda L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barsoum, Wael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sessler, Daniel I</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><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Farag, Ehab</au><au>Atim, Abdulkadir</au><au>Ghosh, Raktim</au><au>Bauer, Maria</au><au>Sreenivasalu, Thilak</au><au>Kot, Michael</au><au>Kurz, Andrea</au><au>Dalton, Jarrod E</au><au>Mascha, Edward J</au><au>Mounir-Soliman, Loran</au><au>Zaky, Sherif</au><au>Ali Sakr Esa, Wael</au><au>Udeh, Belinda L</au><au>Barsoum, Wael</au><au>Sessler, Daniel I</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Three Techniques for Ultrasound-guided Femoral Nerve Catheter Insertion: A Randomized, Blinded Trial</atitle><jtitle>Anesthesiology (Philadelphia)</jtitle><addtitle>Anesthesiology</addtitle><date>2014-08</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>121</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>239</spage><epage>248</epage><pages>239-248</pages><issn>0003-3022</issn><eissn>1528-1175</eissn><coden>ANESAV</coden><abstract>BACKGROUND:Ultrasound guidance for continuous femoral perineural catheters may be supplemented by electrical stimulation through a needle or through a stimulating catheter. The authors tested the primary hypothesis that ultrasound guidance alone is noninferior on both postoperative pain scores and opioid requirement and superior on at least one of the two. Second, the authors compared all interventions on insertion time and incremental cost.
METHODS:Patients having knee arthroplasty with femoral nerve catheters were randomly assigned to catheter insertion guided by(1) ultrasound alone (n = 147); (2) ultrasound and electrical stimulation through the needle (n = 152); or (3) ultrasound and electrical stimulation through both the needle and catheter (n = 138). Noninferiority between any two interventions was defined for pain as not more than 0.5 points worse on a 0 to 10 verbal response scale and for opioid consumption as not more than 25% greater than the mean.
RESULTS:The stimulating needle group was significantly noninferior to the stimulating catheter group (difference [95% CI] in mean verbal response scale pain score [stimulating needle vs. stimulating catheter] of −0.16 [−0.61 to 0.29], P < 0.001; percentage difference in mean IV morphine equivalent dose of −5% [−25 to 21%], P = 0.002) and to ultrasound-only group (difference in mean verbal response scale pain score of −0.28 [−0.72 to 0.16], P < 0.001; percentage difference in mean IV morphine equivalent dose of −2% [−22 to 25%], P = 0.006). In addition, the use of ultrasound alone for femoral nerve catheter insertion was faster and cheaper than the other two methods.
CONCLUSION:Ultrasound guidance alone without adding either stimulating needle or needle/catheter combination thus seems to be the best approach to femoral perineural catheters.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc</pub><pmid>24758775</pmid><doi>10.1097/ALN.0000000000000262</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-3022 |
ispartof | Anesthesiology (Philadelphia), 2014-08, Vol.121 (2), p.239-248 |
issn | 0003-3022 1528-1175 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4110116 |
source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Journals@Ovid Complete |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Analgesics, Opioid - administration & dosage Analgesics, Opioid - therapeutic use Anesthesia Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods Biological and medical sciences Catheterization - economics Catheterization - methods Cost Control Costs and Cost Analysis Electric Stimulation Female Femoral Nerve - diagnostic imaging Humans Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Morphine - administration & dosage Morphine - therapeutic use Needles Nerve Block - economics Nerve Block - methods Pain Management Pain Measurement - drug effects Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control Sample Size Treatment Outcome Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods Young Adult |
title | Comparison of Three Techniques for Ultrasound-guided Femoral Nerve Catheter Insertion: A Randomized, Blinded Trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T18%3A44%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Three%20Techniques%20for%20Ultrasound-guided%20Femoral%20Nerve%20Catheter%20Insertion:%20A%20Randomized,%20Blinded%20Trial&rft.jtitle=Anesthesiology%20(Philadelphia)&rft.au=Farag,%20Ehab&rft.date=2014-08&rft.volume=121&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=239&rft.epage=248&rft.pages=239-248&rft.issn=0003-3022&rft.eissn=1528-1175&rft.coden=ANESAV&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/ALN.0000000000000262&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1548635480%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1548635480&rft_id=info:pmid/24758775&rfr_iscdi=true |