ObjectiveWe hypothesized that ultrasound (US)-guided technique of the supra- and infraclavicular and axillary approaches of brachial plexus block (BPB) will produce a high quality of surgical anesthesia for operations below the shoulder independently of the approach and body mass index (BMI). Intercostobrachial and medial brachial cutaneous nerves will be blocked separately because they are not a part of the brachial plexus.MethodsThis is a prospective randomized observer-blinded study. The three approaches of the US-guided BPB without neurostimulation were compared for quality, performance time, and correlation between performance time and BMI. Intercostobrachial and medial brachial cutaneous nerve blocks were used in all patients.ResultsA total of 101 patients were randomized into three groups: SCL (supraclavicular), ICL (infraclavicular), and AX (axillary). Seven patients were excluded due to various factors. All three groups were similar in demographic data, M:F proportion, preoperative diagnosis and type of surgery, anesthesiologists who performed the block, and surgical staff that performed the surgical intervention. The time between the end of the block performance and the start of the operation was also similar. The quality of the surgical anesthesia and discomfort during the operation were identical following comparison between groups. No direct positive correlation was observed between BMI and the block performance time. The time for the axillary block was slightly longer than the time for the supra- and infraclavicular approaches, but it had no practical clinical significance. Transient Horner syndrome was observed in three patients in the SCL group. No other adverse effects or complications were observed.ConclusionsAll three approaches can be used for US-guided BPB with similar quality of surgical anesthesia for operations of below the shoulder. A block of the intercostobrachial and medial brachial cutaneous nerves is recommended. Obesity is not a significant factor in relation to the time of US-guided BPB performance, or the quality of surgical anesthesia. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01442558.)

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe PROSPECT (Procedure-Specific Postoperative Pain Management) Group recommended a single injection femoral nerve block in 2008 as a guideline for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty. Other authors have recommended the addition of sciatic and obturator nerve blocks. The lateral femoral cutaneous nerve is also involved in pain syndrome following total knee arthroplasty. We hypothesized that preoperative blocking of all four nerves would offer superior analgesia to femoral nerve block alone.MethodsThis is a prospective, randomized, controlled, and observer-blinded clinical study. A total of 107 patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a femoral nerve block group, a multiple nerve block group, and a control group. All patients were treated postoperatively using patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine. Pain intensity at rest, during flexion and extension, and morphine consumption were compared between groups over three days.ResultsA total of 90 patients completed the study protocol. Patients who received multiple nerve blocks experienced superior analgesia and had reduced morphine consumption during the postoperative period compared to the other two groups. Pain intensity during flexion was significantly lower in the “blocks” groups versus the control group. Morphine consumption was significantly higher in the control group.ConclusionsPain relief after total knee arthroplasty immediately after surgery and on the first postoperative day was significantly superior in patients who received multiple blocks preoperatively, with morphine consumption significantly lower during this period. A preoperative femoral nerve block alone produced partial and insufficient analgesia immediately after surgery and on the first postoperative day. (Clinical trial registration number (NIH): NCT01303120)

Study of the dynamic structure response of the long bone has demonstrated the potential to provide an objective quantitative test of fracture healing. The method described consists of monitoring the propagation of a mechanical wave across the fracture site. This wave--generated by the fall of a steel ball from a constant height on a subcutaneous bony protuberance--was monitored on the side opposite the fracture gap by a light-weight accelerometer and traced on a beam-storage oscilloscope. The signals received were found to correlate linearly with the different stages of the fracture welding, as shown by accepted clinical and radiological practice. It seems feasible that the method, being noninvasive, reproducible, simple, painless, and inexpensive, may be used to measure the parameters of fracture healing that are of clinical and scientific interest.