We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
A randomized comparison between neurostimulation and ultrasound-guided lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block.
U.S. Army Medical Department Journal 2017 July
BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized trial compared neurostimulation (NS) and ultrasound (US) guided lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) block. We hypothesized that US would result in a shorter total anesthesia-related time (sum of performance and onset times).
METHODS: Twenty-one volunteers were enrolled. The right lower limb was randomized to an NS- or US-guided LFCN block. The alternate technique was employed for the left lower limb. With NS, paresthesias were sought in the lateral thigh at a stimulatory threshold of 0.6 mA (pulse width=0.3 ms; frequency=2 Hz) or lower. With US, local anesthetic was deposited under the inguinal ligament, ventral to the iliopsoas muscle. In both groups, 5 mL of lidocaine 2% were used to anesthetize the nerve. During the procedure of the block, the performance time and number of needle passes were recorded. Subsequently, a blinded observer assessed sensory block in the lateral thigh every minute until 20 minutes. Success was defined as loss of pinprick sensation at a point midway between the anterior superior iliac spine and the lateral knee line. The blinded observer also assessed the areas of sensory block in the anterior, medial, lateral, and posterior aspects of the thigh and mapped this distribution onto a corresponding grid.
RESULTS: Both modalities provided comparable success rates (76.2%-95.2%), performance times (162.1 to 231.3 seconds), onset times (300.0 to 307.5 seconds) and total anesthesia related-times (480.1 to 554.0 seconds). However US required fewer needle passes (3.2±2.9 vs 9.5±12.2; P=.009). There were no intergroup differences in terms of the distribution of the anesthetized cutaneous areas. However considerable variability was encountered between individuals and between the 2 sides of a same subject. The most common areas of sensory loss included the central lateral two-eighths anteriorly and the central antero-inferior three-eighths laterally.
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guidance and NS provide similar success rates and total anesthesia-related times for LFCN block. The territory of the LFCN displays wide inter- and intra-individual variability.
METHODS: Twenty-one volunteers were enrolled. The right lower limb was randomized to an NS- or US-guided LFCN block. The alternate technique was employed for the left lower limb. With NS, paresthesias were sought in the lateral thigh at a stimulatory threshold of 0.6 mA (pulse width=0.3 ms; frequency=2 Hz) or lower. With US, local anesthetic was deposited under the inguinal ligament, ventral to the iliopsoas muscle. In both groups, 5 mL of lidocaine 2% were used to anesthetize the nerve. During the procedure of the block, the performance time and number of needle passes were recorded. Subsequently, a blinded observer assessed sensory block in the lateral thigh every minute until 20 minutes. Success was defined as loss of pinprick sensation at a point midway between the anterior superior iliac spine and the lateral knee line. The blinded observer also assessed the areas of sensory block in the anterior, medial, lateral, and posterior aspects of the thigh and mapped this distribution onto a corresponding grid.
RESULTS: Both modalities provided comparable success rates (76.2%-95.2%), performance times (162.1 to 231.3 seconds), onset times (300.0 to 307.5 seconds) and total anesthesia related-times (480.1 to 554.0 seconds). However US required fewer needle passes (3.2±2.9 vs 9.5±12.2; P=.009). There were no intergroup differences in terms of the distribution of the anesthetized cutaneous areas. However considerable variability was encountered between individuals and between the 2 sides of a same subject. The most common areas of sensory loss included the central lateral two-eighths anteriorly and the central antero-inferior three-eighths laterally.
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guidance and NS provide similar success rates and total anesthesia-related times for LFCN block. The territory of the LFCN displays wide inter- and intra-individual variability.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app