Precision of traditional approaches for lumbar plexus block: Impact and management of interindividual anatomic variability

Research output: Contribution to journalResearch articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • Axel R. Heller - , University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Author)
  • Alexander Fuchs - , University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, University Center for Orthopedics, Trauma and Plastic Surgery (OUPC) (Author)
  • Thomas Rössel - , University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Author)
  • Oliver Vicent - , Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden (Author)
  • Diana Wiessner - , University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden (Author)
  • Richard H.W. Funk - , University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Institute of Anatomy (Author)
  • Thea Koch - , Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden (Author)
  • Rainer J. Litz - , University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (Author)

Abstract

Background: Traditional methods for approaching the lumbar plexus from the posterior rely on finding the intersection of lines that are drawn based on surface landmarks. These methods may be inaccurate in many cases. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of these traditional approaches and determine if modifications could increase their accuracy. Methods: The lumbar plexus region of 48 cadavers (78 ± 7 yr; 167 ± 6 cm; 60 ± 13 kg; men/women: 29/19) was dissected, and relevant anatomic structures were marked. Needle proximity curves were obtained by triangulation for the five traditional approaches and for vectors from the posterior superior iliac spine directed towards the lumbar spinous processes of L3 and towards L4. Result: Proximity curves (mean ± SD) showed that except Pandin's approach (13 ± 5 mm too medial), all others were too lateral: Winnie (17 ± 8 mm), Chayen (8 ± 5 mm), Capdevila (6 ± 4 mm), and Dekrey (17 ± 6 mm). Further, the curves had a narrow parabolic shape and thus a narrow margin of error. Both diagonal vectors had a significantly higher proximity to the lumbar plexus as compared with traditional approaches with a wide parabola, indicating more error tolerance. Using the vector posterior superior iliac spine-L3 with a length between 1/6-1/3 (= 16-22 mm) of the distance posterior superior iliac spine-L3, a proximity to the lumbar plexus < 5.0 ± 0.3 mm was reached. Conclusions: Improvement of both the proximity and the margin of error is possible by using diagonal landmark vectors. Relying on the position of the posterior superior iliac spine eliminates the sex and sided differences and individual body size, which can be problematic if firm metric distances are used in determining the entry point.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)525-532
Number of pages8
JournalAnesthesiology
Volume111
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2009
Peer-reviewedYes

External IDs

PubMed 19672183

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas