A new posterior approach to the sciatic nerve block: A prospective, randomized comparison with the classic posterior approach

Pia Di Benedetto, Laura Bertini, Andrea Casati, Battista Borghi, Andrea Albertin, Guido Fanelli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy and acceptance of a new posterior subgluteus approach to the sciatic nerve, as compared with the classic posterior approach, 128 patients undergoing foot orthopedic procedures were randomly allocated to receive either the classic posterior sciatic nerve block (Group Labat, n = 64) or a modified subgluteus posterior approach (Group subgluteus, n = 64). All blocks were performed with the use of a nerve stimulator (stimulation frequency, 2 Hz; intensity, 1-0.5 mA). In Group subgluteus, a line was drawn from the greater trochanter to the ischial tuberosity; then, from the midpoint of this line, a second line was drawn perpendicularly and extended caudally for 4 cm. The end of this line represented the needle entry. In both groups, a proper sciatic stimulation was elicited at 0.5 mA; then 20 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine was injected. The time from needle insertion to successful sciatic nerve stimulation was 60 s (range, 10-180 s) with the Labat's approach and 32 s (range, 5-120 s) with the new subgluteus approach (P = 0.0005). The depth of appropriate sciatic stimulation was 45 ± 13 mm (mean ± SD) after 2 (range, 1-7) needle redirections in Group subgluteus and 67 ± 12 mm after 4 (range, 1-10) needle redirections in Group Labat (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.00001, respectively). The failure rate was similar in both groups. Severe discomfort during the procedure was less frequent and acceptance better in Group subgluteus (5 patients [8%] and 60 patients [94%], respectively) than in Group Labat (20 patients [31%] and 49 patients [77%], respectively) (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.005, respectively). We conclude that this new subgluteus posterior approach to the sciatic nerve is an easy and reliable technique and can be considered an effective alternative to the more traditional Labat's approach.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1040-1044
Number of pages5
JournalAnesthesia and Analgesia
Volume93
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Nerve Block
Sciatic Nerve
Needles
Orthopedic Procedures
Femur
Foot

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

A new posterior approach to the sciatic nerve block : A prospective, randomized comparison with the classic posterior approach. / Di Benedetto, Pia; Bertini, Laura; Casati, Andrea; Borghi, Battista; Albertin, Andrea; Fanelli, Guido.

In: Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 93, No. 4, 2001, p. 1040-1044.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Di Benedetto, P, Bertini, L, Casati, A, Borghi, B, Albertin, A & Fanelli, G 2001, 'A new posterior approach to the sciatic nerve block: A prospective, randomized comparison with the classic posterior approach', Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 1040-1044.
Di Benedetto, Pia ; Bertini, Laura ; Casati, Andrea ; Borghi, Battista ; Albertin, Andrea ; Fanelli, Guido. / A new posterior approach to the sciatic nerve block : A prospective, randomized comparison with the classic posterior approach. In: Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2001 ; Vol. 93, No. 4. pp. 1040-1044.
@article{26d63612c7ed479b92a3e70feee72fb4,
title = "A new posterior approach to the sciatic nerve block: A prospective, randomized comparison with the classic posterior approach",
abstract = "To evaluate the efficacy and acceptance of a new posterior subgluteus approach to the sciatic nerve, as compared with the classic posterior approach, 128 patients undergoing foot orthopedic procedures were randomly allocated to receive either the classic posterior sciatic nerve block (Group Labat, n = 64) or a modified subgluteus posterior approach (Group subgluteus, n = 64). All blocks were performed with the use of a nerve stimulator (stimulation frequency, 2 Hz; intensity, 1-0.5 mA). In Group subgluteus, a line was drawn from the greater trochanter to the ischial tuberosity; then, from the midpoint of this line, a second line was drawn perpendicularly and extended caudally for 4 cm. The end of this line represented the needle entry. In both groups, a proper sciatic stimulation was elicited at 0.5 mA; then 20 mL of 0.75{\%} ropivacaine was injected. The time from needle insertion to successful sciatic nerve stimulation was 60 s (range, 10-180 s) with the Labat's approach and 32 s (range, 5-120 s) with the new subgluteus approach (P = 0.0005). The depth of appropriate sciatic stimulation was 45 ± 13 mm (mean ± SD) after 2 (range, 1-7) needle redirections in Group subgluteus and 67 ± 12 mm after 4 (range, 1-10) needle redirections in Group Labat (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.00001, respectively). The failure rate was similar in both groups. Severe discomfort during the procedure was less frequent and acceptance better in Group subgluteus (5 patients [8{\%}] and 60 patients [94{\%}], respectively) than in Group Labat (20 patients [31{\%}] and 49 patients [77{\%}], respectively) (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.005, respectively). We conclude that this new subgluteus posterior approach to the sciatic nerve is an easy and reliable technique and can be considered an effective alternative to the more traditional Labat's approach.",
author = "{Di Benedetto}, Pia and Laura Bertini and Andrea Casati and Battista Borghi and Andrea Albertin and Guido Fanelli",
year = "2001",
language = "English",
volume = "93",
pages = "1040--1044",
journal = "Anesthesia and Analgesia",
issn = "0003-2999",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A new posterior approach to the sciatic nerve block

T2 - A prospective, randomized comparison with the classic posterior approach

AU - Di Benedetto, Pia

AU - Bertini, Laura

AU - Casati, Andrea

AU - Borghi, Battista

AU - Albertin, Andrea

AU - Fanelli, Guido

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - To evaluate the efficacy and acceptance of a new posterior subgluteus approach to the sciatic nerve, as compared with the classic posterior approach, 128 patients undergoing foot orthopedic procedures were randomly allocated to receive either the classic posterior sciatic nerve block (Group Labat, n = 64) or a modified subgluteus posterior approach (Group subgluteus, n = 64). All blocks were performed with the use of a nerve stimulator (stimulation frequency, 2 Hz; intensity, 1-0.5 mA). In Group subgluteus, a line was drawn from the greater trochanter to the ischial tuberosity; then, from the midpoint of this line, a second line was drawn perpendicularly and extended caudally for 4 cm. The end of this line represented the needle entry. In both groups, a proper sciatic stimulation was elicited at 0.5 mA; then 20 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine was injected. The time from needle insertion to successful sciatic nerve stimulation was 60 s (range, 10-180 s) with the Labat's approach and 32 s (range, 5-120 s) with the new subgluteus approach (P = 0.0005). The depth of appropriate sciatic stimulation was 45 ± 13 mm (mean ± SD) after 2 (range, 1-7) needle redirections in Group subgluteus and 67 ± 12 mm after 4 (range, 1-10) needle redirections in Group Labat (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.00001, respectively). The failure rate was similar in both groups. Severe discomfort during the procedure was less frequent and acceptance better in Group subgluteus (5 patients [8%] and 60 patients [94%], respectively) than in Group Labat (20 patients [31%] and 49 patients [77%], respectively) (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.005, respectively). We conclude that this new subgluteus posterior approach to the sciatic nerve is an easy and reliable technique and can be considered an effective alternative to the more traditional Labat's approach.

AB - To evaluate the efficacy and acceptance of a new posterior subgluteus approach to the sciatic nerve, as compared with the classic posterior approach, 128 patients undergoing foot orthopedic procedures were randomly allocated to receive either the classic posterior sciatic nerve block (Group Labat, n = 64) or a modified subgluteus posterior approach (Group subgluteus, n = 64). All blocks were performed with the use of a nerve stimulator (stimulation frequency, 2 Hz; intensity, 1-0.5 mA). In Group subgluteus, a line was drawn from the greater trochanter to the ischial tuberosity; then, from the midpoint of this line, a second line was drawn perpendicularly and extended caudally for 4 cm. The end of this line represented the needle entry. In both groups, a proper sciatic stimulation was elicited at 0.5 mA; then 20 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine was injected. The time from needle insertion to successful sciatic nerve stimulation was 60 s (range, 10-180 s) with the Labat's approach and 32 s (range, 5-120 s) with the new subgluteus approach (P = 0.0005). The depth of appropriate sciatic stimulation was 45 ± 13 mm (mean ± SD) after 2 (range, 1-7) needle redirections in Group subgluteus and 67 ± 12 mm after 4 (range, 1-10) needle redirections in Group Labat (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.00001, respectively). The failure rate was similar in both groups. Severe discomfort during the procedure was less frequent and acceptance better in Group subgluteus (5 patients [8%] and 60 patients [94%], respectively) than in Group Labat (20 patients [31%] and 49 patients [77%], respectively) (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.005, respectively). We conclude that this new subgluteus posterior approach to the sciatic nerve is an easy and reliable technique and can be considered an effective alternative to the more traditional Labat's approach.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034814380&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034814380&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11574380

AN - SCOPUS:0034814380

VL - 93

SP - 1040

EP - 1044

JO - Anesthesia and Analgesia

JF - Anesthesia and Analgesia

SN - 0003-2999

IS - 4

ER -