Brachial plexus anaesthesia in children: lateral infraclavicular vs axillary approach. A comparison of coracoid and axillary approaches to the brachial plexus. Infraclavicular block causes less discomfort than axillary block in ambulatory patients. A comparison of the vertical infraclavicular and axillary approaches for brachial plexus anaesthesia. Efficacy of vertical infraclavicular plexus block vs. modified axillary plexus block: a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study. Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular vs infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks in children. Single-injection brachial plexus anesthesia for arteriovenous fistula surgery of the forearm: a comparison of infraclavicular coracoid and axillary approach. Lateral infraclavicular plexus block vs. axillary block for hand and forearm surgery. Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular versus supraclavicular block. A comparison of a single-stimulation lateral infraclavicular plexus block with a triple-stimulation axillary block. A comparison between ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block using the "double bubble" sign and neurostimulation-guided axillary block. Infraclavicular brachial plexus block versus humeral block in trauma patients: a comparison of patient comfort. Comparison of two different techniques for brachial plexus block: infraclavicular versus axillary technique. Infraclavicular brachial plexus block versus humeral approach: comparison of anesthetic time and efficacy.
Brachial plexus blockade is a well-established technique in upper-limb surgery. In paediatric patients, the axillary route is usually preferred to infraclavicular approaches because of safety considerations. Recent reports on a lateral infraclavicular approach offering greater safety in adults prompted us to perform a prospective randomized study to assess the analgesic efficacy of axillary vs lateral vertical infraclavicular brachial plexus (LVIBP) blocks in paediatric trauma surgery.
                Forty paediatric trauma patients (ASA physical status I and II, age range 1-10 years) scheduled for forearm or hand surgery were randomly assigned to either axillary brachial plexus (ABP group) or LVIBP group blocks using 0.5 ml.kg(-1) ropivacaine 0.5%. Sensory blockade was evaluated by a visual analogue score and Vester-Andersen's criteria, the distribution of sensory and motor blockade was evaluated by a simplified pinprick test and motor tests.
                In the LVIBP group, Vester-Andersen's criteria were met by 100% of children, compared with 80% in the ABP group (P=0.035). Based on all assessable children, sensory blockade in the primary sensory regions of various nerves was significantly more effective in the LVIBP group (axillary: P < 0.0001; musculocutaneous: P=0.002; medial brachial cutaneous; P=0.008). Motor blockade was also significantly more effective (axillary: P < 0.0001; musculocutaneous: P=0.003). No major complications were observed in either group.
                We conclude that LVIBP blocks can be safely performed in children and that they add to the spectrum of sensory and motor blockade seen with the axillary approach. Brachial plexus block by the coracoid approach does not require arm abduction and may be more effective than the axillary approach because of a more proximal injection of local anaesthetic. However, the clinical usefulness of the coracoid approach has not been tested in prospective controlled trials. The present randomized, observer-blinded study compared success rates, time to obtain a complete block, frequency of adverse effects and block discomfort in two groups of 30 patients, anaesthetized for hand surgery using either the coracoid or the axillary approach to the brachial plexus.
                After subcutaneous infiltration with 5 ml of 1% mepivacaine/adrenaline the brachial plexus was located using a nerve stimulator and an insulated pencil-point needle. Ropivacaine 0.75%, 20-40 ml, depending on body weight, was used for the initial block. In the coracoid (C) group two plexus cords, and in the axillary (A) group four terminal nerves were electrolocated and the volume of ropivacaine was divided equally between them. Spread of analgesia to the arm was assessed every 5 min, by an anaesthetist unaware of the block technique. The block was defined as effective (complete) when analgesia was present in all five sensory nerve areas distal to the elbow. Incomplete blocks were supplemented 30 min after the initial block.
                In the C group a median 11 min was required for block performance as compared to 12 min in the A group (NS). Onset of block was shorter and the frequency of incomplete blocks lower in the A group (median 17 min and 17%) than in the C group (30 min and 47%, respectively). Lack of analgesia of the ulnar nerve was the main cause of incomplete initial blocks in the C group. All incomplete blocks were successfully supplemented. However, total time to obtain complete block was shorter in the A group than in the C group (29 min vs. 41 min, P<0.05). Accidental arterial puncture occurred in seven patients (five in C and two in A group), which resulted in two haematomas, both in the C group (NS). No permanent sequelae were observed. CONLCUSION: The axillary approach to the brachial plexus using four injections of ropivacaine results in a faster onset of block and a better spread of analgesia than the coracoid approach using two injections. This randomized study was designed to compare discomfort caused by axillary or infraclavicular blocks in ambulatory patients. We identified which of the three block components, needle passes, local anesthetic (LA) injections, and electrical stimulations, is most painful and quantified pain intensity on a visual analog scale (VAS 0-100). We also assessed onset and quality of analgesia, adverse events and patients' acceptance.
                Eighty patients were studied. In axillary group-A, four LA injections were made after stimulating median, musculocutaneous, ulnar and radial nerves. In infraclavicular group-I, the whole LA volume was injected after stimulating median or ulnar or radial nerves. Patients were ready for surgery when they had analgesia/anesthesia distal to the elbow.
                Median intensity of block discomfort was 22 in A group and 10 in I group (P < 0.01). There was no difference in distribution of the most painful block components between the groups. Block performance times were 4 min in I group and 7 min in A group (P < 0.01). Block onset times were 18 min in A group and 20 min in I group (NS). There was one block failure in I group. Three patients in A group and five in I group required supplementary blocks (NS). Transient adverse events occurred in 14 A-group and two I-group patients (P<0.01). Thirty-seven I-group and 33 A-group patients were satisfied with the block (NS).
                Infraclavicular block by single injection caused less discomfort and fewer adverse events than axillary block by multiple injections. Block effectiveness, onset time and patients' acceptance were similar. This prospective, randomized study compared the efficacy of the vertical infraclavicular and axillary approaches using a single injection blockade of the brachial plexus. The primary endpoint was complete blockade in dermatomes C5-Th1, while secondary endpoints included onset time, motor block, block performance time, surgical success rate, patient satisfaction, and side-effects/complications.
                Sixty patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, scheduled for surgery of the forearm or hand received either a vertical infraclavicular (n = 30) or an axillary block (n = 30). A single injection of 0.5 ml/kg ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml was made after electrolocalization of nerve fibres corresponding to the median nerve at maximum 0.5 mA (2 Hz, 0.1 ms). Onset and distribution of analgesia and motor block were assessed at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 60 min after the local anaesthetic injection. A complete block was defined as analgesia in all dermatomes (C5-Th1) at 60 min post-injection.
                The vertical infraclavicular approach provided complete blockade in 29 patients (97%) and the axillary approach in 23 patients (77%). Analgesia in C5-C6 dermatomes and corresponding motor block occurred significantly more frequently in the vertical infraclavicular approach, which also had the shortest onset time. Block procedure was quicker in the axillary approach. Side-effects were similar in both groups, and there were no permanent sequelae. Patient satisfaction was equally high in both groups.
                The vertical infraclavicular approach provides a more complete block than the axillary approach when using a single injection technique and equal volumes/doses of local anaesthetic. Despite containing severe risks, infraclavicular approaches to the brachial plexus gained increasing popularity. Likewise, the vertical infraclavicular plexus block improved anesthesia compared to the standard axillary approach but contains the risk of pneumothorax. Therefore we modified the standard axillary technique by inserting a proximal directed catheter, referred to as a high axillary plexus block. We prospectively compared quality and onset of neural blockade after vertical infraclavicular plexus block (VIP) and high axillary plexus block (HAP) in two randomized groups (30 patients in each).
                In group VIP the insulated needle was inserted midway between the ventral process of the acromion and the jugular notch. In group HAP, first an axillary needle was placed. Through this a stimulating catheter was inserted in a proximal direction (10-15 cm); correct placement was confirmed by nerve stimulation. All patients received 40 ml ropivacaine 0.75% (300 mg). Discriminating between analgesia and anesthesia, a blinded observer assessed progression of neural blockade every 5 min for 60 min by pin prick. Incomplete blocks were supplemented 60 min after initial injection.
                All patients in both groups demonstrated sufficient surgical anesthesia. No patient needed systemic supplementation or general anesthesia. However, vertical infraclavicular plexus block indicated superior anesthesia compared to high axillary plexus block, regarding musculocutaneous, axillary and radial nerve, which were completely blocked with a higher success rate and in a shorter time interval (P < 0.05).
                While both techniques provide sufficient surgical anesthesia, vertical infraclavicular plexus block demonstrated a partially higher success rate and a faster onset than high axillary plexus block. Supraclavicular brachial plexus blocks are not common in children because of risk of pneumothorax. However, infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks have been described in paediatric patients both with nerve stimulation and ultrasound (US)-guidance. US-guidance reduces the risk of complications in supraclavicular brachial plexus blocks in adults.
                To compare the success rate, complications and time of performance of US-guided supraclavicular vs infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks in children.
                Eighty children, 5-15 years old, scheduled for upper limb surgery were divided into two randomized groups: group S (supraclavicular), n = 40, and group I (infraclavicular), n = 40. All blocks performed were exclusively US-guided, by a senior anaesthesiologist with at least 6 months of experience in US-guided blocks. For supraclavicular blocks the probe was placed in coronal-oblique-plane in the supraclavicular fossa and the puncture was in-plane (IP) from lateral to medial. For infraclavicular blocks the probe was placed parallel and below the clavicle and the puncture was out-of-plane. Ropivacaine 0.5% was administered up to a maximum of 0.5 ml x kg(-1) until appropriate US-guided-spread was achieved. Block duration and volumes of ropivacaine used (mean+/-1SD) in the supraclavicular approach were recorded. Success rate (mean +/- 1 SD, 95%confidence interval), complications rate and time to perform the block (two-tailed Student's test) were recorded both for supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches.
                In the US-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus blocks, the duration of the sensory block was 6.5 +/- 2 h and of the motor block was 4 +/- 1 h. The volume of ropivacaine used in this group was 6 +/- 2 ml. In group I, 88% of blocks achieved surgical anaesthesia without any supplemental analgesia compared with 95% in group S (P = 0.39; difference=7%; 95% CI: -10% to 24%). Failures in group I were because of arterial puncture and insufficient ulnar or radial sensory block. Failures in group S were because of insufficient ulnar sensory block. No pneumothorax or Horner's syndrome was recorded in either group. The mean time (SD) to perform the block was in group I: 13 min (range 5-16) and in group S: 9 min (range 7-12); the 95% CI for this difference was 2-6 min and was statistically significant (P < 0.05).
                (i) Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks are effective in children. (ii) There has been no pneumothorax in 40 US-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus blocks performed by anaesthesiologists already trained in US-guided regional anaesthesia using an IP technique in children > or =5 years old. (iii) In this study, the supraclavicular approach of the brachial plexus was faster to perform than the infraclavicular one. The surgical site for the creation of an arteriovenous fistula at the lateral aspect of the distal forearm may be faster and more effectively blocked with the infraclavicular coracoid approach than with the axillary approach for brachial plexus block.
                Sixty uremic patients scheduled for the creation of an arteriovenous fistula at the forearm were randomized to receive a single-injection brachial plexus block with 35 to 50 mL mepivacaine 0.95% with epinephrine using the infraclavicular coracoid approach (IC group) or the perivascular axillary approach (AX group). A distal muscular contraction elicited by a nerve stimulator at current <0.5 mA was used in all patients.
                At 30 and 45 minutes, complete loss of sensation was observed more often in group IC than AX in the cutaneous distribution of musculocutaneous nerve (62% v 30% [P < .05] and 69% v 40%, respectively [P < .05]), but at 60 minutes the difference was not statistically significant. In other areas, analgesia and motor block were achieved at a similar rate. In 3 patients surgery could not be performed under the block due to changes in schedule or the use of a brachial tourniquet. Patient satisfaction was equally high in both groups.
                Blockade of the musculocutaneous nerve developed faster with the infraclavicular coracoid approach than with the axillary approach. The infraclavicular coracoid approach may be preferable in patients scheduled for the creation of an arteriovenous fistula at the forearm. In the last few years infraclavicular plexus block has become a method of increasing interest. However, this block has been associated with high complication incidences and without advantage in the quality of blockade over the axillary approach. We prospectively studied 40 patients (ASA I-III) undergoing surgery of the forearm and hand, and investigated the performance of the lateral infraclavicular plexus block against an axillary paravascular block to evaluate the success rate as well as the extent and quality of blockade.
                Patients were randomized into two groups: group I (lateral infraclavicular approach; n=20) and group A (axillary approach; n=20). The lateral infraclavicular approach is a technique with the coracoid process (CP) as landmark. Alone the sagittal plane, the needle is inserted until contact with the CP. The needle is then withdrawn 2-3 mm and reinserted directly under the CP, until it contacts the brachial plexus sheath. Plexus blockade was performed using 40 ml of mepivacaine 1%. Quality of sensory and motor block was recorded selectively for each nerve distribution at close intervals for 6 h.
                Successful block according to Vester-Andersen's criteria was achieved in 100% of group I and 85% of group A. In group I, a pronounced sensory and motor blockade of the musculocutaneous nerve was observed, while patients of group A had a weak block of this nerve. In group I, an additional spectrum of nerves (thoracodorsal, axillary and medial brachial cutaneous nerves) was involved compared to group A. There was no difference among groups in onset and duration of block.
                Based on the safe landmark and feasibility of this procedure and the additional spectrum of nerve block achieved, the application of lateral infraclavicular technique has to be reconsidered in clinical practice. In this prospective study we compared ultrasound-guided (USG) infraclavicular and supraclavicular blocks for performance time and quality of block. We hypothesized that the infraclavicular approach would result in shorter performance times with a quality of block similar to that of the supraclavicular approach. Eighty patients were randomized into two equal groups: Group I (infraclavicular) and Group S (supraclavicular). All blocks were performed using ultrasound visualization with a 7.5-MHz linear probe and neurostimulation. The anesthetic mixture consisted of 0.5 mL/kg of bupivacaine 0.5% and lidocaine hydrocarbonate 2% (1:3 vol.) with epinephrine 1:200,000. Sensory block, motor block, and supplementation rates were evaluated for the musculocutaneous, median, radial, and ulnar nerves. Surgical anesthesia without supplementation was achieved in 80% of patients in group I compared with 87% in Group S (P = 0.39). Supplementation rates were significantly different only for the radial territory: 18% in Group I versus 0% in group S (P = 0.006). Block performance times were not different between groups (4.0 min in Group I versus 4.65 min in Group S; P = 0.43). Technique-related pain scores were not different between groups (I: 2.0; S: 2.0; P = 1.00). We conclude that USG infraclavicular block is at least as rapidly executed as USG supraclavicular block and produces a similar degree of surgical anesthesia without supplementation. A single-stimulation infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) is safe and easy to perform, although underused. This technique was compared with a triple-stimulation axillary block (AxB).
                One hundred patients scheduled for hand and forearm surgery were randomly allocated to 2 groups. ICB was performed with the needle inserted above the coracoid process in the upper lateral angle of the infraclavicular fossa and directed vertically until nerve stimulation elicited a distal motor response (median, radial, or ulnar). A single 40-mL bolus of ropivacaine 0.75% was injected. In the AxB group, 3 stimulations were performed to identify median or ulnar, radial, and musculocutaneous nerves, followed by an infiltration near the medial brachial and antebrachial cutaneous nerves. The same 40 mL of ropivacaine 0.75% was injected. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed at 5-minute intervals over 30 minutes.
                The time to block performance was shorter in the ICB than in the AxB group (2.5 +/- 1.9 minutes v 6.0 +/- 2.8 minutes, P <.001). The success rate (complete block in median, radial, ulnar, musculocutaneous, and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerves) was comparable in the 2 groups (90% v 88% in groups ICB and AxB, respectively). Block extension was comparable, except for a higher rate of block completion in the axillary nerve distribution in group ICB and in the medial brachial cutaneous nerve in group AxB. The onset of each nerve block was comparable except for a faster onset for the musculocutaneous nerve in group AxB (8 +/- 3 v 10 +/- 5 minutes).
                A single shot ICB is equally effective as a triple-nerve stimulation AxB. Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block can be performed using the double bubble sign. Previously described, the double bubble sign consists superiorly of the axillary artery (in short axis) superimposed on an inferior bubble created by local anesthetic injection. In this study, we compared this new method of brachial plexus anesthesia to the traditional triple-nerve stimulation axillary block.
                Seventy patients were randomized to receive a single-injection, ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block using the double bubble sign or a triple-stimulation axillary block.
                Both methods produced similar success rates (89%-91%). However, infraclavicular blocks were associated with a shorter performance time (3.90 +/- 2.27 vs 8.03 +/- 3.92 min; P < 0.001) and lower block-related pain scores (2.70 +/- 2.02 vs 4.17 +/- 2.57 on a 0-10 scale; P = 0.01).
                Compared to triple-stimulation axillary block, ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block using the double bubble sign provided a similar efficacy, a shorter performance time and lower procedural pain scores. In this prospective randomized study, we compared humeral block (HB) and infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) with pain caused by the block as a primary outcome, assuming that ICB would cause less pain than HB. Patients undergoing emergency upper limb surgery were included in this study and received either ICB (group I, n = 52 patients) or HB (group H, n = 52 patients). Patients were asked to quantify the severity of the pain during the procedure using a visual analog scale from 0 to 100 mm and to identify which of the 4 components of the procedure was most unpleasant (skin transfixion, needle redirection in search of the nerves, local anesthetic injections, or electrical stimulation). The block was assessed every 5 min for 30 min after completion of the block. Overall visual analog scale scores for the block were 35 +/- 27 mm in group H versus 19 +/- 18 mm in group I (P < 0.0011). Electrical stimulation was the most unpleasant part of the block (group H, 29 +/- 15 mm versus group I, 15 +/- 10 mm) (P < 0.019). Time to perform the block was significantly shorter in group I (ICB, 6 +/- 4 min versus HB, 10 +/- 4 min; P < 0.0001). The onset time was 13 +/- 7 min for ICB and 9 +/- 3 min for HB (P < 0.05). No serious complications were observed. In summary, ICB is less painful, compared with HB, with a similar success rate. Brachial plexus block via the axillary approach is problematic in patients with limited arm mobility. In such cases, the infraclavicular approach may be a valuable alternative. The purpose of our study was to compare axillary and infraclavicular techniques for brachial plexus block in patients undergoing arm or forearm surgery.
                After institutional approval and informed consent were obtained, 30 patients (ASA physical status I or II) scheduled for forearm and hand surgery under brachial plexus anesthesia were included in the study. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Brachial plexus block was performed via the axillary approach in the Group A patients and via the infraclavicular approach in the Group I patients using a peripheral nerve stimulator. All blocks were performed with a total dose of 40 ml 0.375% bupivacaine.
                In each nerve territory (radial, ulnar, median, and musculocutaneous), the mean values of the degree and the duration of the sensory block and motor block were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). Inadvertent vessel puncture was significantly more frequent in the axillary approach (P < 0.05).
                Brachial plexus block performed via the infraclavicular approach is as safe and effective as the axillary approach. Infraclavicular approach may be preferred to the axillary approach when the upper arm mobility is impaired or not desired. Most upper arm regional anesthesia techniques are successful and differences in efficacy should not dictate the choice of technique. In the present study, we compared humeral block (HB) and infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) using anesthetic time (i.e., duration of the procedure + onset time) as the primary outcome measure. The block was successful when a complete sensory block was obtained in the four major nerves of the arm, and the time to complete block was recorded. Patients undergoing orthopedic surgery of the upper limb were included in a prospective randomized study and received ICB (group I, n = 60 patients) or HB (group H, n = 60 patients). Total anesthetic time was 19.5 min (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.4-21.6 min) for ICB and 20.8 min (95% CI, 18.7--22.9 min) for HB (not significant). Time to perform the block was 4.5 min (95% CI, 4-5 min) for ICB and 9.8 min (95% CI, 8.9--10.7 min) for HB (P < 0.05). The onset time was 15 min (95% CI, 13-17 min) for ICB and 11 min (95% CI, 9--13 min) for HB (P < 0.05). The success rate was 92% for ICB and 95% for HB (not significant). One self-limited vascular puncture was made in each group. HB had a faster onset time but ICB using a double-stimulation technique was faster to perform. Anesthetic time was similar with the two techniques.
                We have compared infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) with humeral block. Efficacy and anesthetic time were not significantly different, although time to perform the block was shorter with the ICB.
ICB is a safe and simple technique for providing surgical anaesthesia of the lower arm, with an efficacy comparable to other BPBs. The advantages of ICB include a lower likelihood of tourniquet pain during surgery, and more reliable blockade of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves when compared to a single-injection axillary block. The efficacy of ICB is likely to be improved if adequate time is allowed for block onset (at least 30 minutes) and if a volume of at least 40 ml is injected. Since publication of many of the trials included in this review, it has become clear that a distal posterior cord motor response is the appropriate endpoint for electrostimulation-guided ICB; we recommend it be used in all future comparative studies. There is also a need for additional RCTs comparing ultrasound-guided ICB with other BPBs.