Single- Versus Multiple-Stimulation Infraclavicular Blocks

B. Ilfeld
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/rapm.2003.50044
2003-01-06
Abstract:To the Editor: For undertaking an important and challenging investigation, I applaud the authors of the recent publication entitled Infraclavicular Plexus Block: Multiple Injection Versus Single Injection.1 However, I would like to caution readers of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine regarding the ultimate conclusion drawn by the authors that “by performing an infraclavicular block with stimulation of all 3 cords of the brachial plexus, the success rate is higher than when only a single stimulation is used.” While their finding that the success rate increased from 40% to 72.5% with multiple stimulation is supported by the data presented, I believe that their conclusion statement may mislead readers who are not familiar with infraclavicular blockade. As the authors noted in their discussion, the volume of local anesthetic used for their study totaled 30 mL for each patient—either all 30 mL in a single injection or 10 mL injected on each of the 3 brachial plexus cords. The volume is critical for the single-injection infraclavicular block as the cords at the level of the coracoid process surround the axillary artery. Therefore, regardless of the cord(s) initially localized by the stimulating needle, the local anesthetic must extend around to the other side of the axillary artery to contact all 3 cords, and thus the entire brachial plexus. Evidence for this may be found in a recent article, which reported a “doughnut sign” seen by ultrasound when local anesthetic spread around the axillary artery during injection.2 Although a doseresponse study has yet to be published, this theoretically suggests that an inadequate volume of local anesthetic to “surround” the axillary artery may result in a high failure rate. In contrast, the multiple-stimulation technique deposits local anesthetic adjacent to each of the 3 cords, thus theoretically decreasing the total minimum local anesthetic volume required for a successful block. As the authors noted in their discussion, this concept has been demonstrated for femoral nerve blocks involving singleversus multiple-stimulation techniques.3 The dramatic difference between the authors’ singleinjection success rate (40%) and those previously reported (89% to 100%)4-10 was explained by differing definitions of block success and surgical location. However, it is noteworthy that all of these studies reporting a high success rate involved a bolus of 40 to 50 mL of local anesthetic; and one other study using a lower volume of 20 to 30 mL (2-cord multistimulation, 1 patient of 30 received 40 mL) reported a success rate of only 53%.11 I agree with the authors that it is only “speculation” that the “multi-stimulation technique may allow a smaller volume of LA solution,” and that “further studies are required to confirm this speculation.” However, until these studies are published, I believe that the authors’ final conclusion statement regarding the superiority of multipleversus single-stimulation blocks based on their method of using only 30 mL for each single-injection blocks may be misleading. For example, Gale Thompson, M.D., of Virginia Mason Medical Center, demonstrated that when using a paresthesia technique for an axillary block, a total of less than 15 mL of local anesthetic is required (personal communication, Jeffrey Swisher, M.D., February 1998). However, other techniques require far more local anesthetic to be effective.12 Imagine the results of a study comparing the paresthesia and trans-arterial techniques using a total of 15 mL of local anesthetic. If this hypothetical study had been published prior to the wide application of axillary blocks, there is a very good chance that the trans-arterial technique would have been avoided because of its “demonstrated” high failure rate, when in actuality this technique has been shown to provide success rates of up to 99% when an adequate volume of anesthetic is used.13 In the authors’ defense, the issue of local anesthetic volume was mentioned in 2 lines of the discussion, although the very real possibility (probability?) that the differences between technique success rates was due to this factor may not have been addressed adequately so that the majority of readers will understand this critically important variable. When a success rate of 40% is reported, it is easy to come to the conclusion that the technique (single-injection) should be avoided. However, because of others’ success with the single-stimulation technique,4-10 as well as our own at the University of Florida (unpublished data, Ilfeld and Enneking, 2002), I wish to call readers’ attention to this issue.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?