prikaz prve stranice dokumenta Benefit of the minimal invasive ultrasound-guided single shot femoro-popliteal block for ankle surgery in comparison with spinal anesthesia
No public access
Scientific paper - Original scientific paper
Benefit of the minimal invasive ultrasound-guided single shot femoro-popliteal block for ankle surgery in comparison with spinal anesthesia
Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 122 (2010), 19-20; 584-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-010-1451-9
Protic, Alen; Horvat, Mladen; Komen-Usljebrka, Helga; Frkovic, Vedran; Zuvic-Butorac, Marta; Bukal, Krešimir; Sustic, Alan

Cite this document

Protic, A., Horvat, M., Komen Usljebrka, H., Frkovic, V., Zuvic Butorac, M., Bukal, K. & Sustic, A. (2010). Benefit of the minimal invasive ultrasound-guided single shot femoro-popliteal block for ankle surgery in comparison with spinal anesthesia. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 122. (19-20), 584-587. doi: 10.1007/s00508-010-1451-9

Protic, Alen, et al. "Benefit of the minimal invasive ultrasound-guided single shot femoro-popliteal block for ankle surgery in comparison with spinal anesthesia." Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, vol. 122, no. 19-20, 2010, pp. 584-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-010-1451-9

Protic, Alen, Mladen Horvat, Helga Komen Usljebrka, Vedran Frkovic, Marta Zuvic Butorac, Krešimir Bukal and Alan Sustic. "Benefit of the minimal invasive ultrasound-guided single shot femoro-popliteal block for ankle surgery in comparison with spinal anesthesia." Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 122, no. 19-20 (2010): 584-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-010-1451-9

Protic, A., et al. (2010) 'Benefit of the minimal invasive ultrasound-guided single shot femoro-popliteal block for ankle surgery in comparison with spinal anesthesia', Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 122(19-20), pp. 584-587. doi: 10.1007/s00508-010-1451-9

Protic A, Horvat M, Komen Usljebrka H, Frkovic V, Zuvic Butorac M, Bukal K, and sur.. Benefit of the minimal invasive ultrasound-guided single shot femoro-popliteal block for ankle surgery in comparison with spinal anesthesia. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift [Internet]. 2010 October 01 [cited 2024 April 27];122(19-20):584-587. doi: 10.1007/s00508-010-1451-9

A. Protic, et al., "Benefit of the minimal invasive ultrasound-guided single shot femoro-popliteal block for ankle surgery in comparison with spinal anesthesia", Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, vol. 122, no. 19-20, pp. 584-587, October 2010. [Online]. Available at: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:193:693533. [Accessed: 27 April 2024]

Please login to the repository to save this object to your list.
Metadata
Title (english)Benefit of the minimal invasive ultrasound-guided single shot femoro-popliteal block for ankle surgery in comparison with spinal anesthesia
AuthorAlen Protic
AuthorMladen Horvat
AuthorHelga Komen-Usljebrka
AuthorVedran Frkovic
AuthorMarta Zuvic-Butorac
AuthorKrešimir Bukal
AuthorAlan Sustic
Author's institutionUniversity of Rijeka
(Faculty of Biotechnology and Drug Development)
Scientific / art field,
discipline and subdiscipline		BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTHCARE
Clinical Medical Sciences
Anesthesiology and Reanimatology
Abstract (english)
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia has gained popularity for ankle and foot surgery. The aim of our study was to investigate the sufficiency of anesthesia for ankle surgery as well as duration of analgesia in postoperative period, using minimal invasive ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia, and to compare it with anesthesia and postoperative analgesia following spinal anesthesia. METHODS: This prospective study included 40 adult trauma patients with bimalleolar fracture who were scheduled for surgery. They were randomly assigned and divided in two groups. Patients from the first group underwent an Ultrasound-guided femoro-popliteal block (US-FPB), while a spinal anesthesia (SA) was performed for the second group. The local anesthetic 0.5% bupivacaine was used in both groups. RESULTS: Eighteen patients from the first and nineteen patients from the second group completed the study. Levels of anesthesia were sufficient in both groups without significant differences. Duration of postoperative analgesia was significantly higher in US-FPB group in comparison to SA group (12 ± 3 vs. 3 ± 1 h) (p < 0.001). At the same time, onset of complete sensory motor block was significantly faster in SA group in comparison to US-FPB group (5 ± 1 vs. 8 ± 3 min) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Minimal invasive US-FPB provides sufficient anesthesia for ankle fracture. In comparison to the SA group, patients from the US-FPB group achieved significantly longer postoperative analgesia, while faster onset of anesthesia was noted in SA group.
Keywords (english)
Languageenglish
Publication typeScientific paper - Original scientific paper
Publication statusPublished
Peer reviewPeer review - international
Publication versionPublished version
Journal titleWiener Klinische Wochenschrift
Numberingvol. 122, no. 19-20, pp. 584-587
p-ISSN0043-5325
e-ISSN1613-7671
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-010-1451-9
URN:NBNurn:nbn:hr:193:693533
Publication2010-10-01
Document URLhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00508-010-1451-9
Type of resourceText
Access conditionsClosed access
Terms of useLicence In copyright icon
Created on2018-09-30 16:38:48