Key result
Ultrasound-guided brachial plexus blockade showed no difference in success rates between axillary and infraclavicular approaches (RR 1.0; 95% CI 1.0-1.1; p=0.97).
Why the study?
Does the approach or number of injections affect the success rate of ultrasound-guided brachial plexus blockade?
Systematic Review (n=1,948)
Does the approach or number of injections affect the success rate of ultrasound-guided brachial plexus blockade?
Relative Risk: 1 (95% CI 1–1.1)
p-value: p=0.97
Different approaches and number of injections for ultrasound-guided brachial plexus blockade yield similar success rates, though single injections reduce procedural paraesthesia.
Single injection reduces paraesthesia without compromising success; confirms equivalence of approaches and injection numbers for ultrasound-guided brachial plexus blockade.
We systematically reviewed 25 randomised controlled trials of ultrasound-guided brachial plexus blockade that recruited 1948 participants: either one approach vs another (axillary, infraclavicular or supraclavicular); or one injection vs multiple injections. There were no differences in the rates of successful blockade with approach, relative risk (95% CI): axillary vs infraclavicular, 1.0 (1.0-1.1), p = 0.97; axillary vs supraclavicular, 1.0 (1.0-1.1), p = 0.68; and infraclavicular vs supraclavicular, 1.0 (1.0-1.1), p = 0.32. There was no difference in the rate of successful blockade with the number of injections, relative risk (95% CI) 1.0 (1.0-1.0), p = 0.69, for one vs multiple injections. The rate of procedural paraesthesia was less with one injection than multiple injections, relative risk (95% CI) 0.6 (0.4-0.9), p = 0.004.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Albrecht et al. (2015) conducted a systematic review in Brachial plexus blockade (n=1,948). Ultrasound-guided brachial plexus blockade (axillary approach) vs. Infraclavicular approach was evaluated on Successful blockade (RR 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.1, p=0.97). Ultrasound-guided brachial plexus blockade showed no difference in success rates between axillary and infraclavicular approaches (RR 1.0; 95% CI 1.0-1.1; p=0.97).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: