MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4313268518 · doi:10.4103/joacp.joacp_657_20

Motor block and hypotension following a high thoracic erector spinae plane block

2022· article· en· W4313268518 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Kamal Kumar, Megan Woods, Nathan Ludwig, Cheng Lin

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAnesthesia and Pain Management
Établissements canadiensWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRopivacaineAnesthesiaSittingErector spinae musclesLocal anestheticSurgeryLumbar

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dear Editor, Erector spinae plane blocks (ESPBs) are becoming more prevalent in clinical practice for postoperative pain control following truncal procedures. ESPBs are often quoted as being easy to perform and having few complications. We describe a patient with a thoracic epidural spread after administering an ultrasound-guided unilateral high thoracic ESPB for a video-assisted thoracoscopic procedure (VATS). A 62-year-old woman with chronic smoking, hypertension, and asthma was scheduled for an elective right VATS upper lobectomy for a malignant lesion. Her body weight was 78 kg, and she had no functional limitations. After obtaining informed consent, standard Canadian Anesthesia Society monitors were applied. She received preprocedural 1 mg of intravenous midazolam. The block was performed in the block room by an anesthesia resident under an experienced attending anesthesiologist’s supervision. In a sitting position, right ESB was performed using a linear ultrasound transducer oriented in the parasagittal plane. An out-of-plane approach was used due to the shorter needling distance, thus mitigating discomfort. After contacting the T4 TP, 20 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine was injected, and a local anesthetic was seen spreading deep to the erector spinae muscle. She was transferred to the operating room following an uneventful 10 min of monitoring in the block room. Upon directing the patient to move from the stretcher to the operating table, she noted having decreased bilateral lower limb sensation and motor weakness. Physical exam revealed decreased strength in hip flexion and a bilateral truncal sensory from T4 to L4 dermatomes. Her blood pressure had dropped to 73/36. She did not have any shortness of breath, chest pain, or light headedness. An awake radial arterial line was placed, and a phenylephrine infusion was initiated at 20 mcg/min. With her blood pressure stabilized, the decision was made to proceed with surgery. With surgical stimulation, she was able to wean off the phenylephrine infusion. She had no motor weakness or sensory loss following an uncomplicated 3 h long VATS lobectomy. In the post-anesthetic care unit (PACU), Pain scores were between 4 and 6, and blood pressure was 99/66. In a review, the incidence of complications of ESPBs is 0.2%, including bilateral lower limb weakness, motor block, transient apathy, aphasia, dizziness, loss of consciousness due to systemic toxicity and pneumothorax.[1] Selvi et al.[2] reported an unexpected motor weakness following bilateral T11 ESPB, and De Cassai et al.[3] reported near-complete lower extremity immobility following bilateral L3 ESPB for lumbar laminectomy. Our patient experienced bilateral motor and sensory block along with significant hypotension 15 min after a high unilateral thoracic ESPB. Given the symmetrical nature of the blockade and its resolution, we postulated that the local anesthetic injected had spread to the epidural space via the costotransverse foramen.[3] This may be related to the orientation and the angulation of the needle. Such a precipitous and unexpected drop in blood pressure could result in hemodynamic instability and cardiac compromise in some patients. Although seemingly rare, caution must be taken. Declaration of patient consent The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,064
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,753

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,371
Écart entre enseignants0,332 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations7
Publié2022
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical PharmacologyMême sujetAnesthesia and Pain ManagementTravaux en français237 207