title: No correlation between minimal electrical charge at the tip of the stimulating catheter and the efficacy of the peripheral nerve block catheter for brachial plexus block: a prospective blinded cohort study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Stimulating catheters offer the possibility of delivering an electrical charge via the tip of the catheter. This may be advantageous as it allows verifying if the catheter tip is in close proximity to the target nerve, thereby increasing catheter performance. This prospective blinded cohort study was designed to investigate whether there is a correlation between the minimal electrical charge at the tip of the stimulating catheter, and the efficacy of the peripheral nerve block (PNB) catheter as determined by 24 h postoperative morphine consumption.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty adult patients with ASA physical health classification I-III scheduled for upper extremity surgery under combined continuous interscalene block and general anesthesia were studied. Six patients were excluded from analysis.After inserting a stimulating catheter as if it were a non-stimulating catheter for 2-5 cm through the needle, the minimal electrical charge necessary to obtain an appropriate motor response was determined. A loading dose of 20 mL ropivacaine 0.75% ropivacaine was then administered, and postoperative analgesia was provided by a continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% 8 mL.h-1 via the brachial plexus catheter, and an intravenous morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device.Main outcome measures include the minimal electrical charge (MEC) at the tip of the stimulating catheter necessary to elicit an appropriate motor response, and the efficacy of the PNB catheter as determined by 24 h postoperative PCA morphine consumption.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean (SD) [range] MEC at the tip of the stimulating catheter was 589 (1414) [30 - 5000] nC. Mean (SD) [range] 24 h morphine consumption was 8.9 (9.9) [0-29] mg. The correlation between the MEC and 24 h postoperative morphine consumption was Spearman's Rho rs = -0.26, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.09.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We conclude that there is no proportional relation between MEC at the tip of the blindly inserted stimulating catheter and 24 h postoperative morphine consumption.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Trialregister.nl identifier: NTR2328.
authors.forename: Karin Pw
authors.initials: KP
authors.lastname: Schoenmakers
authors.forename: Petra Jc
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Heesterbeek
authors.forename: Nigel Tm
authors.initials: NT
authors.lastname: Jack
authors.affiliation: Department of Anesthesiology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Postbox 9011, 6500 GM Nijmegen, The Netherlands. r.stienstra@maartenskliniek.nl.
authors.forename: Rudolf
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Stienstra
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000701:Analgesics, Opioid / Q000008:administration & dosage; D001340:Autonomic Nerve Block / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D065527:Brachial Plexus Block / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D057785:Catheters; D015331:Cohort Studies; D004558:Electric Stimulation / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009020:Morphine / Q000008:administration & dosage; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000517:prevention & control*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D000701:Analgesics, Opioid; D009020:Morphine
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 1969 Aug;41(8):695-8
references.pmid: 5810129
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2007 Sep;105(3):848-52
references.pmid: 17717249
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2011 Nov;113(5):1276-8
references.pmid: 21965350
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 2005 Aug;95(2):250-4
references.pmid: 15923268
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2009 Aug;109(2):673-7
references.pmid: 19608846
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2005 Oct;101(4):1192-1197
references.pmid: 16192543
references.citation: Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010 Mar-Apr;35(2):194-9
references.pmid: 20216037
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2007 Feb;104(2):442-7
references.pmid: 17242107
references.citation: Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008 May-Jun;33(3):207-10
references.pmid: 18433670
references.citation: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006 Nov;50(10):1284-9
references.pmid: 17067330
references.citation: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008 Sep;52(8):1158-66
references.pmid: 18840118
references.citation: Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 Sep-Oct;31(5):445-50
references.pmid: 16952817
references.citation: Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008 Jul-Aug;33(4):291-6
references.pmid: 18675738
references.citation: Anesthesiology. 2003 Aug;99(2):429-35
references.pmid: 12883416