• Framarz Mosaffa, Babak Gharaei, Mehran Rafeeyan, and Latif Gachkar.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Akhtar Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
• J Clin Anesth. 2012 May 1;24(3):196-200.

Study ObjectiveTo determine if there is a difference between the vertical and coracoid approaches to the infraclavicular block.DesignRandomized, double-blinded clinical trial.SettingUniversity-affiliated medical center.Patients60 ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients undergoing surgery of the forearm and hand.InterventionsPatients were randomized to two groups: Group VIP (vertical infraclavicular approach; n=30) and Group Coracoid (coracoid infraclavicular approach; n=30). In the infraclavicular coracoid approach, the coracoid process was used as the landmark. Needle positioning was guided by nerve stimulation.MeasurementFor each approach, the quality of sensory and motor block was assessed and recorded separately for each of the 4 major nerves of the upper limb.Main ResultsThe infraclavicular coracoid approach (11±1 min) was faster to perform than the vertical infraclavicular block (14±1 min; P < 0.05). The infraclavicular coracoid approach yielded a shorter sensory block onset time (2.3±1.3 vs 3±1.3 min; P < 0.05). In the coracoid group, a pronounced sensory and motor block was noted in the area innervated by the musculocutaneous nerve (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe coracoid approach is convenient to perform with extensive block, and is thus an appropriate alternative to the vertical approach in infraclavicular block.Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…