Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 178387

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : April | Volume : 16 | Issue : 4 | Page : UC05 - UC09 Full Version

Comparative Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound-guided and Landmark-based Paravertebral Block Technique in Patients undergoing Elective Unilateral Breast Surgery


Published: April 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/50267.16226
Akhil Goel, Navdeep Sethi, Kaminder Bir Kaur, Debashish Paul, Deepak Dwivedi, Arijit Ray

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Command Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 2. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, AFMC, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, AFMC, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 4. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, AFMC, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 5. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Command Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 6. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, AFMC, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Debashish Paul,
Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, AFMC, Wanowrie, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: drdpaulamc@rediffmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Identifying the Paravertebral Space (PVS) by its anatomical landmarks is associated with high failure rates and complications. With the advent of Ultrasonography (USG), failure rate has decreased leading to an increased interest in performing USG-guided Thoracic Paravertebral Block (TPVB).

Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of ultrasound guided TPVB and its comparison with the landmark-based technique, in patients undergoing elective unilateral breast surgery.

Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out at Command Hospital, Pune from July 2014 to December 2015, on females between 18-70 years, accepted in American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) I-III for unilateral breast surgeries. Patients were divided into two groups with 40 subjects in each group. Group A subjects were treated with anatomical landmark technique and group B subjects with Ultrasound-guided (USG-guided) technique. The p-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results: Demographic parameters (age, height, weight and Body Mass Index (BMI) and the scheduled surgery were comparable in between the groups. In group A, success rate of the block was 82.5%, compared to 95% in group B (p-value >0.05 using Fisher’s-Exact test). Mean (SD) time taken for performing the block in group A was 371.10 (10.37) seconds while it was 613.73 (37.15) seconds in group B (p-value <0.05 by two independent sample t-tests). No statistically significant difference was seen in haemodynamic parameters, except for the Heart Rate (HR) at 70, 80, 90 minutes after administering the block and at the end of surgery. Correlation analysis for quantitative variables with PVS depth (dependent variable), measured sonologically, showed very good linear correlation of PVS depth with weight (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r=0.819, p-value <0.001). BMI (r=0.884; p-value <0.001).

Conclusion: The success rate is higher with ultrasound-guided TPVB compared to the landmark technique, though statistically insignificant. But it is recommended to use ultrasound-guided TPVB for advantages such as lesser requirement of opioid supplementation, real time visualisation of the spread of drugs in PVS with lesser complication rates.

Keywords

Anatomic landmark, Heart rate, Paravertebral, Thoracic, Ultrasonography

Ultrasound-guided TPVB is a topic of renewed interest amongst the practitioners, however concerns regarding its safety and efficacy still exist. Many practitioners, however, remain hesitant to perform TPVB owing to the associated risk of pneumothorax (0.5%-2%), in addition to the risk of dural puncture with landmark approaches (1). The anatomical landmark techniques rely on indirect methods of identification of the PVS with failure rates of 10.7-15% and complication rates of 5% (2),(3). Luyet C et al., in a cadaver model demonstrated direct visualisation of the superior costotransverse ligament via high-resolution USG, which is an important structure to be traversed while performing the paravertebral block (4). The growth of USG and the ability to visualise the pleura and other anatomical structures in and around the PVS with the needle and real time spread of local anaesthetic in PVS has fuelled a tremendous increased interest in performing USG-guided TPVB (5).

Considering the hypothesis that, USG-guided TPVB leads to an increase in efficacy with an accurate estimation of PVS depth from skin, the present study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of USG-guided TPVB and its comparison with the landmark-based technique in patients undergoing elective unilateral breast surgery.

The primary objective of the study was to compare the success rate with the time required to perform the block and the secondary objective was to compare the average depth of the PVS from the skin along with complications, if any, in between the two techniques.

Material and Methods

This cross-sectional study was carried out in a tertiary care teaching hospital at AFMC and Command Hospital, Pune, from July 2014 to December 2015 after taking appropriate Institutional Ethical consent (IEC S.No.IEC/2011/Oct 2011).

Inclusion criteria: Females between 18-70 years of age, planned for unilateral breast surgeries, accepted in physical status class ASA I-III were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Spinal disorders such as kyphoscoliosis, local infection, coagulopathies, septicaemia, allergic to local anaesthetics and refusal to participate in the study were excluded.

Sample size calculation: Sample size was decided as 40 in each group considering an alpha error of 5%, power of the study 80% and assuming success rates of anatomical landmark-based technique and ultrasound guided TPVB to be 80% and 99%, respectively, based on a pilot study in the same Institute (6). However, all 123 patients who reported for undergoing elective breast surgery during the study period were assessed for eligibility to be included in the study. After satisfying the inclusion criteria, 80 out of these 123 patients were included in the study for final analysis. These patients were allocated into two groups by consecutive sampling: Group A (receiving TPVB by anatomical landmark technique) and Group B (receiving ultrasound-guided TPVB).

After obtaining the written informed consent, all patients were kept fasting as per standard guidelines. Intravenous (i.v.) catheter placement was done following application of Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics (EMLA) cream. Standard monitoring like Electrocardiogram (ECG), Oxygen saturation (SpO2), Heart Rate (HR), and Non Invasive Blood Pressure (NIBP) was instituted. Catheter was inserted in thoracic PVS in sitting position using either of the two techniques.

Group A: For the anatomical landmark-based technique, under strict asepsis, 3 mL of 2% lignocaine was infiltrated, 2.5 cm lateral to upper border of T4 spinous process and a skin wheal was raised. 16 Gauge Tuohy’s needle was then inserted at this point advancing anteriorly in the parasagittal plane (perpendicular to the back). After the Tuohy’s needle got fixed in the subcutaneous tissue, its stylet was removed and a Loss Of Resistance (LOR) syringe was attached to it. The needle was further advanced until it contacted the transverse process. Thereafter, the needle shaft was grasped with the fingers 1 cm from the skin surface so that the fingers served as a “backstop” to prevent the needle from passing beyond 1 cm into the PVS and possibly contacting the parietal pleura. Then the needle tip was withdrawn to the subcutaneous tissue and angled to “walk off” the cephalad edge of the transverse process, advancing it further, till a “pop” or LOR was appreciated indicating that the needle tip had pierced the superior costotransverse ligament. The LOR syringe was then detached from the Tuohy’s needle and 25 cm extension tubing with syringe containing the initial test dose (3 mL of 2% lignocaine with 1:2,00,000 epinephrine) was attached to the Tuohy’s needle for delivering the same after negative aspiration for blood. Thereafter, epidural catheter (18-gauge in size) was threaded into the PVS and left 3-4 cm in-situ. This catheter was then secured on the skin with sterile adhesive dressing (Table/Fig 1)a.

Group B: For USG-guided TPVB, a parasagittal in-plane approach was used. The local area was first properly prepared and disinfected following which a point 2.5 cm lateral to the upper border of the T4 spinous process was marked. A linear array transducer (Sonosite 5-8 MHz) was placed parallel to the T4 spinous process in vertical orientation and the transverse process, superior costotransverse ligament and parietal pleura were identified. Slight tilting of the probe allowed for better visualisation of the superior costotransverse ligament and pleura. Skin and the planned trajectory pathway of the Tuohy’s needle, was infiltrated with 2% lignocaine (3-5 mL). A 16-gauge Tuohy’s needle connected to 25 cm extension tubing was inserted under ultrasound guidance, using a parasagittal in-plane approach in the cephalad direction. The PVS was entered midway between the two transverse processes avoiding any bony contact. The tip of the needle was advanced under direct vision to puncture the superior costotransverse ligament which was associated with a tactile “pop”. After negative aspiration for blood, test dose was injected slowly into the PVS which resulted in anterior displacement of the pleura. An epidural catheter (18-gauge) was threaded into the PVS and left 3-4 cm in-situ as done in the other technique (Table/Fig 1)b.

Study Procedure

Following the initial test dose, 10-15 ml bolus (0.2 ml/kg) of 0.5% bupivacaine was injected over a period of 30 seconds after negative aspiration and continuous infusion of 0.25% bupivacaine at the rate of 6-10 mL/hour (0.15 mL/kg/hour) through the catheter intraoperatively. Postoperatively, all the patients received 0.1 mL/kg/hour of 0.125% bupivacaine, which was continued for a period of 48 hours.

Time taken for performing the TPVB using either technique was noted along with the perioperative haemodynamic variables like HR, NIBP, Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), SpO2 at 1, 3, 5, 10 minutes after instituting the block and every 10 minutes, thereafter, till completion of surgery.

Time taken for performing the block in group A was recorded from when the Tuohy’s needle was taken in hand for performing the block till the point of securing the paravertebral catheter. In group B, it was taken from the time of placing the ultrasound probe on the back of the patient over the target area till the point of securing the paravertebral catheter. Both the groups were observed for the complications like pneumothorax, vascular puncture, hypotension and arrythmia.

Onset of TPVB (approximately after 10-15 minutes of administering the block) was noted by checking for the loss of pin prick sensation on the chest wall in the mid-clavicular line on the ipsilateral side.

All patients received general anaesthesia as per the following protocol. Patients were premedicated with Injection (Inj.) Glycopyrrolate 0.1 mg i.v. (given prior to performing the block using either technique)), Inj. Midazolam 2 mg iv. and Inj. Fentanyl 1 mcg/kg, i.v. (given after administering the block using either technique). Induction was done with propofol 2-3 mg/kg i.v. and intubation with appropriately sized endotracheal tube (ETT) using Inj. Vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg i.v. Maintenance of anaesthesia was achieved with O2+N2O (1:2) + isoflurane (0.6-1%), with intermittent doses of vecuronium as required. Extubation was done following reversal of neuromuscular blockade using Inj. Neostigmine 50 μg/kg i.v. and Inj. Glycopyrrolate 10 μg/kg i.v.

The success of the block was corroborated by change in HR less than 20% on surgical incision or by change in MAP less than 20% with respect to pre-incision value for a period of less than five minutes along with no opioid supplementation in a period of 24 hours following surgery.

Inj. Morphine (0.1 mg/kg i.v. intraoperatively) and (0.05 mg/kg postoperatively) was decided as rescue analgesia. Intraoperative increase in HR >30%, (ruling out other causes) and patient’s demand for pain relief in the post-operative period were considered for opioid supplementation.

Postoperative observation was continued till 24 hours after the surgery by the anaesthesiologist not involved in performing the procedures. All the continuous catheters of TPVB were removed on the second postoperative day.

Statistical Analysis

Data was tabulated on Microsoft Excel worksheet and statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All categorical data were expressed in the form of numbers and percentage while continuous data were expressed in the form of mean and Standard Deviation (SD) and studied using appropriate statistical tests (p-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant). Demographic parameters (age, height, weight and BMI) between the two groups were analysed by two independent sample t-test. The type of scheduled elective unilateral breast surgeries, either Breast Conservation Surgery (BCS) or Modified Radical Mastectomy (MRM) was compared using Chi-square test. Success rates of the block were compared using Fisher’s-Exact test. Mean (SD) time taken for performing the block was compared by two independent sample t-tests. For age and height, Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to assess the linear correlation of age and height with PVS depth.

Results

After satisfying the inclusion criteria, 80 out of 123 patients were included and allocated into two groups in the study for final analysis.

No statistically significant difference in any of the demographic parameters (age, height, weight and BMI) between the two groups was observed (two independent sample t-test p-value >0.05). All the 80 patients were scheduled for elective unilateral breast surgeries, either BCS or MRM. When compared, (p-value >0.05, Chi-square test) there was no association between the technique of block used and the type of surgery (Table/Fig 2).

In Group A (anatomical landmark technique group), success rate of the block was seen in 33 (82.5%) patients as compared to 38 (95%) in group B (USG group). This difference was not statistically significant (p-value >0.05, Fisher’s-Exact test). A total of 88.75% (71 out of 80) patients had successful block (Table/Fig 3).

There were two failures in the ultrasound group (one developed hypotension and one required opioid supplementation), whereas there were seven failures in the anatomical landmark technique group (two developed hypotension and five required opioid supplementation).

Mean (SD) time taken for performing the block in the anatomical group was 371.10 (10.37) seconds while it was 613.73 (37.15) seconds in the USG group. (p-value <0.05, two independent sample t-tests). (p-value <0.05; Mann-Whitney U test) (Table/Fig 4).

Two patients had vascular puncture and two patients developed hypotension. In Group A whereas there was no vascular puncture and only one patient developed hypotension in Group B. (p-value >0.05; Fisher’s-Exact test (Table/Fig 5)).

No statistically significant difference was seen in heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and MAP, using the two-sample t-test at baseline, and at any point of time after performing the block except a statistically significant difference for the HR at 70, 80, 90 minutes after administering the block and at the end of surgery (Table/Fig 6).

Correlation analysis was performed between the quantitative variables: age, height, weight, BMI with PVS depth (dependent variable) measured sonologically in patients receiving USG-guided block (Table/Fig 7).

There was no statistically significant difference in the mean needle insertion length (cm) to PVS using the two techniques (p-value >0.05) (Table/Fig 8).

Discussion

There are a lot of interests in TPVB by different approaches. Some studies have shown that the single-shot thoracic PVB can be a component of a multimodal analgesic regimen for abdominal surgery for up to 24 hours in the postoperative period (7). USG guidance is the new awareness in approaching for paravertebral block. In the present study, a parasagittal in-line approach was taken. This approach for performing TPVB under USG guidance has been observed to be highly efficacious with minimal complications and adequate needle visualisation can be achieved (8). Chelly JE et al., have also supported the use of parasagittal approach, as in this technique the needle is advanced under direct visualisation and the spread of local anaesthetic in PVS can be monitored limiting the rate of complications (6). Moreover in this approach, the neural foramen which is the anatomical point of entry into the epidural space is approached perpendicularly, making the procedure safer in approach (8). On the other hand, the transverse or ‘latero-medial’ approach makes the needle aligned directly with the neural foramen with a potential risk for epidural blockade (2),(4).

The decision of administering general anaesthesia to all the patients in addition to Continuous Catheter Paravertebral Block (CPVB) was based on a meta-analysis of fifteen randomised controlled trials including 877 patients for breast surgery, in which it was mentioned that CPVB in combination with general anaesthesia may provide the most effective perioperative analgesia for breast surgery (9). In the present study, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups when analysed for the success rate. These results are comparable to the study done by O Riain SC et al., in which 66% patients were observed to have either partial or complete sensory loss measured at (mean±SD) 20±4.8 minutes after performing ultrasound guided TPVB, which increased to 100% in the recovery room (5). Various studies have quoted a failure rate of TPVB using anatomical technique to be approximately 10.7-15% (3),(4). Fewer studies have addressed the success rate of CPVB, with Renes et al reporting a success rate of 100% for catheter insertion (10). In this study, less number of patients developed hypotension and required opioid supplementation in the ultrasound group than the anatomical landmark technique group.

Mean time (in seconds) required for performance of the block was significantly prolonged in USG-guided TPVB. This finding is comparable to the study by O Riain SC et al., who reported a mean (±SD) block time of 523 (211) seconds for USG-guided TPVB. This increased time in performing the block should be weighed against the efficacy of USG-guided TPVB (5).

Though haemodynamic variables (HR, SBP, DBP and MAP) did not show any statistically significant difference in between the groups, but change in HR at 70, 80, 90 minutes after administering the block and at the end of surgery were different and statistically significant. This may be attributed to more precise TPVB achieved under ultrasound guidance leading to a relatively more stable HR.

There was no inadvertent vascular puncture, pleural puncture, pneumothorax and only one patient developed hypotension when the block was performed under USG guidance. However, this observation was not statistically significant when compared with the other group. Studies have shown that the landmark technique failure rate appears to be higher than the USG-guided with quoted rates between 1.98 and 5.6 (11),(12).

However, it is difficult to determine the present complication rates while performing paravertebral blocks on basis of the past scientific publications as higher success rate is anticipated due to use of ultrasound and nerve stimulation. Furthermore, as elucidated by Vogt A, there is strong evidence to suggest that use of ultrasound for TPVB increases its efficacy and safety with accurate placement of needle in the PVS, thereby reducing the incidence of pleural puncture and pneumothorax. These findings have been reinforced and brought out in the present study (13). In this study, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean (SD) needle insertion length to PVS by anatomical landmark technique or under USG guidance. Estimation of this PVS depth is important, more so if the block is performed at T4 level as PVS is shallower and its depth is dependent on various variables such as age, height, weight and BMI (6).

The present study showed very good linear correlation of PVS depth with weight and BMI, whereas the linear correlation obtained with age and height was poor. Chelly JE et al., in their review of 559 surgical patients undergoing 1,318 TPVB mentioned that in the high thoracic region (i.e., between T4-T8 level), PVS depth is dependent on gender, weight, thoracic level and age of the patients (6).

Naja MZ et al., in their study comprising of 527 patients undergoing TPVB, stated that the PVS depth was significantly influenced by BMI at upper and lower thoracic levels, but not in the mid-thoracic region. These findings are comparable to the results obtained in this present study except for the correlation of PVS depth with age. This may be attributable to the limited sample size achieved in the said duration of this study (14). The present study results support the hypothesis that USG-guided TPVB leads to an increased efficacy within accurate estimation of PVS depth.

Limitation(s)

This could not be blinded, given the need to use the ultrasound machine, with the possibility of operator bias. Also, there is a learning curve to be surmounted before the anaesthesiologist becomes proficient in performing the USG-guided TPVB. Considering the small sample size in the present study, results cannot be extrapolated to find out the incidence of complications.

Conclusion

The success rate is higher with USG-guided TPVB compared to the anatomical landmark technique though statistically insignificant. Although the time taken to perform the block is prolonged with the use of ultrasound, but this is acceptable considering the advantages provided by the ultrasound as lesser requirement of preoperative opioid supplementation, real time visualisation of the spread of drug in PVS, with lesser complication rates.

References

1.
Karmakar MK. Thoracic paravertebral block. Anaesthesiology. 2001;95:771-80. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200109000-00033. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Pace MM, Sharma B, Anderson-Dam J, Fleischmann K, Warren L, Stefanovich P. Ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral blockade: A retrospective study of the incidence of complications. Anaesth Analg. 2016;122(4):1186-91. Doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001117. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Lönnqvist PA, MacKenzie J, Soni AK, Conacher ID. Paravertebral blockade. Failure rate and complications. Anaesthesia.1995;50(9):813-15. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1995.tb06148.x. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Luyet C, Eichenberger U, Greif R, Vogt A, Szücs Farkas Z, Moriggl B. Ultrasoundguided paravertebral puncture and placement of catheters in human cadavers: An imaging study. BJA. 2009;102(4):534-39. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
O Riain SC, Donnell BO, Cuffe T, Harmon DC, Fraher JP, Shorten G. Thoracic paravertebral block using real-time ultrasound guidance. Anaesth Analg. 2010;110(1):248-51. Doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181c35906. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Chelly JE, Uskova A, Merman R, Szczodry D. A multifactorial approach to the factors influencing determination of paravertebral depth. Can J Anaesth. 2008;55(9):587-94 [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Fentie DY, Gebremedhn EG, Denu ZA, Gebreegzi AH. Efficacy of single-injection unilateral thoracic paravertebral block for post open cholecystectomy pain relief: A prospective randomised study at Gondar University Hospital. Local Reg Anaesth. 2017;10:67-74. https://doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S133946. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Patel LP, Sanghvi PR, Agarwal MB, Prajapati GC, Patel BM. Thoracic paravertebral block for analgesia after modified radical mastectomy. Indian J Pain. 2014;28:160-65. [crossref]
9.
Schnabel A, Reichl SU, Kranke P, Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Zahn PK. Efficacy and safety of paravertebral blocks in breast surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials [published correction appears in Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(3):522]. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105(6):842-52. Doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq265. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Renes SH, Bruhn J, Gielen MJ, Scheffer GJ, van Geffen GJ. In-plane ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral block: A preliminary report of 36 cases with radiologic confirmation of catheter position. Reg Anaesth Pain Med. 2010;35(2):212-16. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
El-Boghdadly K, Madjdpour C, Chin KJ. Thoracic paravertebral blocks in abdominal surgery- a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2016;117(3):297-308. Doi: 10.1093/bja/aew269. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Terkawi AS, Tsang S, Sessler DI, Terkawi RS, Nunemaker MS, Durieux ME, et al. Improving analgesic efficacy and safety of thoracic paravertebral block for breast surgery: A mixed-effects meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2015;18(5):E757-80. [crossref]
13.
Vogt A. Review about ultrasounds in paravertebral blocks. European Journal of Pain Supplements. 2011;5(S2):489-94. [crossref]
14.
Naja MZ, Gustafsson AC, Ziade MF, El Rajab M, Al-Tannir M, Daher M, et al. Distance between the skin and the thoracic paravertebral space. Anaesthesia. 2005;60(7):680-84. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04232.x. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/50267.16226

Date of Submission: May 08, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Aug 27, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Jan 28, 2022
Date of Publishing: Apr 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 10, 2021
• Manual Googling: Jan 27, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Feb 21, 2022 (12%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com