↓ Skip to main content

Risks and Benefits of Ultrasound, Nerve Stimulation, and Their Combination for Guiding Peripheral Nerve Blocks

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesia and analgesia, October 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Risks and Benefits of Ultrasound, Nerve Stimulation, and Their Combination for Guiding Peripheral Nerve Blocks
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, October 2018
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000003480
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hagen Bomberg, Laura Wetjen, Stefan Wagenpfeil, Jakob Schöpe, Paul Kessler, Hinnerk Wulf, Thomas Wiesmann, Thomas Standl, André Gottschalk, Jens Döffert, Werner Hering, Jürgen Birnbaum, Bernd Kutter, Jörg Winckelmann, Simone Liebl-Biereige, Winfried Meissner, Oliver Vicent, Thea Koch, Hartmut Bürkle, Daniel I Sessler, Thomas Volk

Abstract

Ultrasound, nerve stimulation, and their combination are all considered acceptable ways to guide peripheral nerve blocks. Which approach is most effective and associated with the fewest complications is unknown. We therefore used a large registry to analyze whether there are differences in vascular punctures, multiple skin punctures, and unintended paresthesia. Twenty-six thousand seven hundred and thirty-three cases were extracted from the 25-center German Network for Regional Anesthesia registry between 2007 and 2016 and grouped into ultrasound-guided puncture (n = 10,380), ultrasound combined with nerve stimulation (n=8173), and nerve stimulation alone (n = 8180). The primary outcomes of vascular puncture, multiple skin punctures, and unintended paresthesia during insertion were compared with conditional logistic regression after 1:1:1 propensity score matching. Results are presented as odds ratios and 95% CIs. Propensity matching successfully paired 2508 patients with ultrasound alone (24% of 10,380 patients), 2508 patients with a combination of ultrasound/nerve stimulation (31% of 8173 patients), and 2508 patients with nerve stimulation alone (31% of 8180 patients). After matching, no variable was imbalanced (standardized differences <0.1). Compared with ultrasound guidance alone, the odds of multiple skin punctures (2.2 [1.7-2.8]; P < .001) and vascular puncture (2.7 [1.6-4.5]; P < .001) were higher with nerve stimulation alone, and the odds for unintended paresthesia were lower with nerve stimulation alone (0.3 [0.1-0.7]; P = .03). The combined use of ultrasound/nerve stimulation showed higher odds of multiple skin punctures (1.5 [1.2-1.9]; P = .001) and lower odds of unintended paresthesia (0.4 [0.2-0.8]; P = .007) compared with ultrasound alone. Comparing the combined use of ultrasound/nerve stimulation with ultrasound alone, the odds for vascular puncture (1.3 [0.7-2.2]; P = .4) did not differ significantly. Systemic toxicity of local anesthetics was not observed in any patient with ultrasound guidance alone, in 1 patient with the combined use of ultrasound and nerve stimulation, and in 1 patient with nerve stimulation alone. Use of ultrasound alone reduced the odds of vascular and multiple skin punctures. However, the sole use of ultrasound increases the odds of paresthesia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 10%
Other 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 19 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Materials Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 21 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2021.
All research outputs
#6,932,988
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#2,350
of 8,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,203
of 354,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#32
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.