To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Continuous Interscalene vs. High Thoracic Erector Spinae Block in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
July 2022

Continuous Interscalene vs. High Thoracic Erector Spinae Block in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Vol: 267| Issue: 1| Number:1| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Continuous interscalene versus phrenic nerve-sparing high-thoracic erector spinae plane block for total shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

Can J Anaesth. 2022 01-May;():. 10.1007/s12630-022-02216-1

Contributing Authors:
LY Sun S Basireddy LN Gerber J Lamano J Costouros E Cheung J Boublik JL Horn BCH Tsui

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Thirty patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty were randomized to receive a continuous interscalene brachial plexus block (n=15) or a high-thoracic erector spinae plane block (n=15) for the control of post-operative shoulder pain. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. Additional outcomes of interest included incentive spirometry volume, sensory a...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue