Parasagittal Vs Cornerpocket Approaches

Sohag University

Status: Not yet enrolling

Conditions: Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block

Treatments: Procedure: supraclavicular ultrasound guided brachial plexus block

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT06352333

Parasagittal Vs Cornerpocket

Details and patient eligibility

About

Brachial plexus blocks are widely used to provide anesthesia for upper limb surgery.

Although many different approaches to the brachial plexus block have been described, there is widespread acceptance that injecting at the supraclavicular level is the most reliable method in terms of spread of local anesthetic agent.

Each approach of ultrasound guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block (US -SCBPB ) has a different success rate and complications. .

A supraclavicular block can provide effective surgical anesthesia of the forearm and hand.

The most commonly performed US- SCBPB is the corner pocket approach which was described by Chan et al with probe resting posterior to the clavicle, with postero latero-anteromedial orientation provides a very stable location, but has the disadvantage of "looking" across the first rib, with the apex of the lung visualized close to thePlexus .

A new Parasagittal approach for brachial plexus block at the supraclavicular level was studied by Adrian Searle where the arc of the first rib was used to provide a deep limit to needle transit in order to minimize the risk of pneumothorax ;the aim of our study is to further evaluate the parasagittal approach for brachial plexus block and compare it with the popular corner pocket approach

Full description

After approval of research ethics committee of Sohag University hospital, a written consent will be taken from all participants to use their data for research and educational purposes The study will be carried on 80 participants who undergo elective upper limb surgery for a comparative study.

In this study the investigators will use A 22 G Spinal needle , a high frequency linear probe of US and 2 % lidocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine as local anathetics ,Every participant will be informed about advantages and disadvantages of the research and has the right to withdraw at any stage without negative impact on medical service production.

For both types of block:

Wide bored cannula is inserted,Monitoring is applied (pulse,Ecg,Bp) Oxygen mask 5 liters , Participants were positioned supine with the head turned to the non-operative Side ( contralateral side), and a pillow under the head and shoulder with the ipsilateral arm placed adducted by the patient side.

After that we sterilize the skin and apply a local anesthetic (2-3 ml of2% lidocaine).

The total volume of the local anesthetic mixture was 30 ml (10 ml of 2% lidocaine mixed with 20 ml of 0.5% bupivacine ) Then participants will be divided randomly into 2 groups ,each group 40 participants.

Enrollment: 80 estimated patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18 to 60 years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• 18 to 60 years old
• ASA grade I to II
• Elective upper limb surgery

Exclusion criteria

• Patient refusal.
• Patient with neurological deficit in the limb of surgery
• Patients with psychiatric disease.
• Coagulopathy.
• Morbid obesity.
• Known allergy to used local anathetics
• Local infection at the block site.

Trial design

Primary purpose: Screening

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: None (Open label)

---

80 participants in 2 patient groups

group A

Active Comparator group

Description:

Cornerpocket supraclavicular ultrasound guided brachial plexus block

Treatment:

Procedure: supraclavicular ultrasound guided brachial plexus block

group B

Active Comparator group

Description:

Parasagital supraclavicular ultrasound guided brachial plexus block

Treatment:

Procedure: supraclavicular ultrasound guided brachial plexus block