Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Single- versus double-injection costoclavicular block: a randomized comparison
  1. Sebastián Layera1,
  2. Julián Aliste1,
  3. Daniela Bravo1,
  4. Diego Fernández1,
  5. Armando García2,
  6. Roderick J Finlayson3 and
  7. De Q Tran3
  1. 1Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
  2. 2Orthopedic Surgery, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
  3. 3Anesthesiology, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Julián Aliste, Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago 8380456, Chile; julian.aliste{at}uchile.cl

Abstract

Background The costoclavicular approach targets the brachial plexus in the proximal infraclavicular fossa, where the lateral, medial, and posterior cords are tightly bundled together. This randomized trial compared single- and double-injection ultrasound-guided costoclavicular blocks. We selected onset time as the primary outcome and hypothesized that, compared with its single-injection counterpart, the double-injection technique would result in a swifter onset.

Methods Ninety patients undergoing upper limb surgery (at or below the elbow joint) were randomly allocated to receive a single- (n=45) or double-injection (n=45) ultrasound-guided costoclavicular block. The local anesthetic agent (35 mL of lidocaine 1%-bupivacaine 0.25%with epinephrine 5 µg/mL and 2 mg of preservative-free dexamethasone) was identical in all subjects. In the single-injection group, the entire volume of local anesthetic was injected between the three cords of the brachial plexus. In the double-injection group, the first half of the volume was administered in this location; the second half was deposited between the medial cord and the subclavian artery. After the performance of the block, a blinded observer recorded the onset time (defined as the time required to achieve a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 out of 16 points), success rate (surgical anesthesia) and block-related pain scores. Performance time and the number of needle passes were also recorded during the performance of the block. The total anesthesia-related time was defined as the sum of the performance and onset times.

Results Compared with its single-injection counterpart, the double-injection technique displayed shorter onset time (16.6 (6.4) vs 23.4 (6.9) min; p<0.001; 95% CI for difference 3.9 to 9.7) and total anesthesia-related time (22.5 (6.7) vs 28.9 (7.6) min; p<0.001). No intergroup differences were found in terms of success and technical execution (ie, performance time/procedural pain). The double-injection group required more needle passes than the single-injection group (2 (1–4) vs 1 (1–3); p<0.001).

Conclusion Compared with its single-injection counterpart, double-injection costoclavicular block results in shorter onset and total anesthesia-related times. Further investigation is required to determine if a triple-injection technique (with targeted local anesthetic injection around each cord of the brachial plexus) could further decrease the onset time.

Trial registration number NCT03595514.

  • brachial plexus
  • upper extremity
  • regional anesthesia

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @s_layera

  • Contributors SL, JA, DB, DF, and AG participated in the planning, conception, design, conduct, reporting, acquisition of data, data analysis, and interpretation of data. RJF and DQT participated in the planning, conception, design, data analysis, and interpretation of data.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. Protocols, IRB approval, consent forms, and deidentified participant data are available upon reasonable request.