The Korean Journal of Pain

The Korean Pain Society (대한통증학회)
권호 표지

The Effect of Stellate Ganglion Block for Controlling Postoperative Pain after the Shoulder Joint Surgery

견관절 수술 시 성상신경절 차단이 술 후 통증에 미치는 영향

  • Park, Chai Geun (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Sun General Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jong Sun (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Sun General Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Won Hyung (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Chungnam National University)
  • 박채근 (대전 선병원 마취통증의학과) ;
  • 김종선 (대전 선병원 마취통증의학과) ;
  • 이원형 (충남대학교 의과대학 마취통증의학교실)
  • Received : 2006.03.30
  • Accepted : 2006.07.28
  • Published : 2006.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: There are cases in which shoulder pain persists long after shoulder joint surgery and this pain can not be reduced by intravenous patient controlled analgesia (IVPCA). Our purpose was to evaluate the effect of stellate ganglion block (SGB) on postoperative shoulder pain and also to investigate the effect of preventive SBG on complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Methods: Forty patients, who were evaluated to ASA class 1 and 2 and who were scheduled for shoulder joint surgery under general anesthesia, were randomly divided into 2 groups. The experimental group of patients (n = 20) received SGB with 0.5% mepivacaine 8 ml after induction of general anesthesia. The control group of patients (n = 20) received only general anesthesia. Their postoperative pain was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) at 30 min, 1, 2, 6, 12, 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Whenever patients wanted supplemental analgesia, diclofenac sodium 75 mg was injected intramuscularly and the need for supplemental analgesia was recorded. Results: The experimental group of patients had significantly lower pain scores at 30 min, 1, 2 and 6 hours and also significantly lower analgesic requirement at 1, 2 and 6 hours. Conclusions: We found SGB was effective for controlling postoperative pain after shoulder joint surgery. Also, we could expect that SGB reduced the incidence of CRPS.

Keywords

References

  1. Burkhart SS: Reconciling the paradox of rotator cuff repair versus debridement: a unified biomechanical rationale for treatment of rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 1994; 10: 4-19 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-8063(05)80288-9
  2. Hadzic A, Williams BA, Karaca PE, Hobeika P, Vnis G, Dermksian J, et al: For outpatient rotator cuff surgery, nerve block anesthesia provides superior same-day recovery over general anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2005; 102: 1001-7 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200505000-00020
  3. Barber FA: Suprascapular nerve block for shoulder arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 2005; 21: 1015
  4. Pak TJ, Martin GM, Magness JL, Kavanaugh GJ: Reflex sympathetic dystrophy: review of 140 cases. Minn Med 1970; 53: 507-12
  5. Kozin F, Ryan LM, Carerra GF, Soin JS, Wortmann RL: The reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome (RDSD). III. Scintigraphic studies, further evidence for the therapeutic efficacy of systemic corticosteroid, and proposed diagnostic criteria. Am J Med 1981; 70: 23-30 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(81)90407-1
  6. Gibbons JJ, Wilson PR: RSD score: criteria for the diagnosis of reflex symparhetic dystrophy and causalgia. Clin J Pain 1992; 8: 260-3 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-199209000-00012
  7. Ritchie ED, Tong D, Chung F, Norris AM, Miniaci A, Vairavanarhan SD: Suprascapnlar nerve block for postoperative pain relief in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a new modality? Anesth Analg 1997; 84:1306-12 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-199706000-00024
  8. Al-Kaisy A, McGuire F, Chan VW, Bruin G, Peng P, Miniaci A, et al: Analgesic effeer of interscalene block using low-dose bupivacaine for outpatient arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1998; 23 469-73
  9. D'Alessio JG, Rosenblum M, Shea KP, Freitas DG: A retrospective comparison of interscalene block and general anesthesia for ambulatory shoulder arthroscopy. Reg Anesth 1995; 20: 62-8
  10. Brown AR, Weiss R, Greenburg C, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU: Interscalene block for shoulder arthroscopy: comparison withr general anesthesia. Arthroscopy 1993; 9: 295-300 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-8063(05)80425-6
  11. Singelyn FJ, Lhotel L, Fabre B: Pain relief after arthroscopic shoulder surgery, a comparison of intraarticular analgesia, suprascapular nerve block and interscalene brachial plexus block. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 589-92
  12. Morgan GE, Mikhail MS, Murray MJ: Clinical anesthesiology. 3rd ed. New York, McGraw-Hill. 2002, pp 283-308
  13. The Korean Pain Society: Pain medicine. 2nd ed. Seoul, Koonja Publishing Inc. 2000, pp 370-7
  14. Forrest JB: Sympathetic mechanisms in postoperative pain. Can J Anaesth 1992; 39: 523-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03008311
  15. Stevens RA, Stotz A, Kao TC, Powar M, Burgess S, Kleinman B: The relative increase in skin temperature after stellate ganglion block is predictive of a comlpete sympathectomy of the hand. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1998; 23: 266-70
  16. Turner-Stokes L: Reflex sympathetic dystrophy-a complex regional pain syndrome. Disabil Rehabil Med 2002; 24: 939-47 https://doi.org/10.1080/0963828021000007950
  17. Geurts AC, Visschers BA, van LimbeekJ, Ribbers GM: Systemic review of aetiology and treatment of post-stroke hand edema and shoulder-hand syndrome. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000; 32: 4-10 https://doi.org/10.1080/003655000750045668
  18. Ponce!et C, Perdu M, Levy-Weil F, Philippe HJ, Nisand I: Reflex sympathetic dystrophy in pregnancy: nine cases and a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod BioI 1999; 86: 55-63 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(99)00051-2
  19. Birklein F, Kunzel W, Sieweke N: Despite clinical similarities there are significant differences between acute limb trauma and complex regional pain syndrome I (CRPS I). Pain 2001; 93: 165-71 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00309-8
  20. Reuben SS, Rosenthal EA, Steinberg RB: Surgery on the affected upper extremity of patients with a history of complex regional pain syndrome: a retrospective study of 100 patients. J Hand Surg 2000; 25: 1147-51 https://doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2000.18496