MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2113076251 · doi:10.1097/01.anes.0000265451.35645.b7

Ultrasound Detects Intraneural Injection

2007· letter· en· W2113076251 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Brull, Vincent W. S. Chan, Colin J. L. McCartney, Anahi Perlas, Daquan Xu

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnesthesiology · 2007
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineUltrasoundRadiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We read with interest the recent article by Paul Bigeleisen titled “Nerve Puncture and Apparent Intraneural Injection during Ultrasound-guided Axillary Block Do Not Invariably Result in Neurologic Injury.”1The author is to be commended for this small study, which supports the ability of ultrasound to detect intraneural injection during peripheral nerve blockade. Bigeleisen’s experience with ultrasound and low-volume intraneural injection complements our own in both the laboratory and clinical settings. In our recently completed study of ultrasound-detected intraneural injection, we inserted blunt-tipped insulated 22-gauge needles (Stimuplex®; B. Braun, Bethlehem, PA) directly into axillary brachial plexus nerves of anesthetized pigs and then injected dye-stained dextrose under ultrasound imaging.2,3After injecting 4 ml dye-stained dextrose, we visualized a 57% (median) increase in nerve diameter using real-time ultrasound imaging. We then harvested the injected nerves for histologic examination and found that dye had penetrated the epineurium in all 24 cases where nerve expansion was visualized on ultrasound. The dye had penetrated the perineurium in 2 of these cases, and none of the cases demonstrated fascicular dysplasia. Much like Bigeleisen, we concluded that ultrasound is a useful technique to detect intraneural injection. Unlike Bigeleisen, we know for certain that our needle was indeed intraneural at the time of nerve expansion on ultrasound. Subsequent to definitively characterizing the sonographic appearance of intraneural injection (pig study completed August 2005), we have performed more than 411 ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blocks to date and have identified 12 patients in whom we accidentally performed one or more probable intraneural injections using a 50:50 mixture of 2% lidocaine:0.5% bupivacaine with 0.005 mg/ml epinephrine. We stopped the injection immediately after recognizing the pattern of nerve expansion, which was usually visible after injecting 1–3 ml local anesthetic. Bigeleisen reported that intraneural injection elicited paresthesiae or dysesthesiae with gross variability. By stark contrast, none of our 12 patients reported pain or dysesthesiae at the time of intraneural injection. We contacted each of these 12 patients on postoperative days 1 and 7 to find that none had any reports of pain, paresthesiae, dysesthesiae, or weakness associated with their recent axillary nerve block.Our needle choice differs from that of Bigeleisen and may at least partially explain why we failed to demonstrate significant perineural penetration in our laboratory or elicit pain or dysesthesiae in our block room. We use a blunt-tipped insulated needle, whereas the needle used in Bigeleisen’s study was a sharp hypodermic B-bevel needle, which, as Bigeleisen suggests, may conceivably confer a greater risk of perineural puncture, intrafascicular injection, and consequent nerve damage.4Our clinical experience using a blunt-tipped needle is that the nerve floats away from the needle tip upon routine ultrasound-guided injection of local anesthetic. This seemingly protective phenomenon may be a function of needle choice, in addition to tissue displacement. Another reason why ultrasound-detected intraneural injection may not always result in nerve damage is because injectate tends to leak out of the nerve during injection. In our pig study, we directly observed dye-stained injectate leak out of the nerve along the needle tract after injecting as little as 1 ml.3In summary, we agree with Bigeleisen’s discussion and Borgeat’s accompanying insightful editorial commentary.5We believe that needle penetration and small-volume injection through the epineurium may be more common than anticipated in daily practice and most often benign in nature, and that the true danger zone for nerve damage likely lies beyond the perineurium. Unfortunately, current ultrasound technology does not allow the operator to visually differentiate the epineurium from perineurium. Nonetheless, ultrasound seems to be a useful tool to detect as little as 1–2 ml intraneural injectate and thus avoid presumably injurious high-volume local anesthetic intraneural injection. Whether ultrasound-detected intraneural injection culminates in clinical neurologic deficit is currently under investigation at our institution.*University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. richard.brull@uhn.on.ca

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,688
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,263 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations20
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnesthesiologyMême sujetNerve Injury and RehabilitationTravaux en français237 207