A comparison of ultrasound-guided and landmark-based approaches to saphenous nerve blockade: a prospective, controlled, blinded, crossover trial.

Published

Journal Article

BACKGROUND: Blockade of the saphenous nerve is often used for surgeries below the knee. Depending on the approach, success rates vary widely ranging from 33% to 88%. In this prospective volunteer study, we compared 2 ultrasound-guided techniques, the modified vastus medialis and perifemoral saphenous nerve block with a below the knee field block. METHODS: Twenty volunteer adults, in a single-blinded, crossover, prospective trial underwent 3 different saphenous nerve blocks. The primary end point of block success was loss of sensation in the distal two-thirds distribution of the saphenous nerve. Secondary variables included time to perform the block, time to sensory loss, pain during block, and motor weakness. RESULTS: Compared with the below the knee field block success rate (30%), both the modified vastus medialis and perifemoral techniques had significantly higher success rates (80%, difference 50% with confidence interval [CI], 23%-77%, P = 0.009, and 100%, difference 70% with CI, 41%-91%, P < 0.001, respectively). However, the difference when comparing the perifemoral ultrasound technique against the modified vastus medialis ultrasound technique did not show significance (difference 20% with CI, -7% to 49%, P = 0.125). Also, no statistical differences were found with the other variables measured, except the perifemoral technique showed faster block performance times than below the knee field block (P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: In our prospective study, we have demonstrated that ultrasound-guided above the knee saphenous nerve blocks have higher success rates than a below the knee field block and are easily performed in a short amount of time.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Kent, ML; Hackworth, RJ; Riffenburgh, RH; Kaesberg, JL; Asseff, DC; Lujan, E; Corey, JM

Published Date

  • July 2013

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 117 / 1

Start / End Page

  • 265 - 270

PubMed ID

  • 23632054

Pubmed Central ID

  • 23632054

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1526-7598

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 0003-2999

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1213/ane.0b013e3182908d5d

Language

  • eng