Loading…

Bilateral ankle blocks: A prospective audit

Background:  There are significant advantages to the practice of bilateral ankle block. However, clinicians are reluctant to employ this technique due to concerns over reliability, local anaesthetic longevity and toxicity, surgical efficiency, and patient comfort. Methods:  Sixty‐six patients underg...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:ANZ journal of surgery 2005-01, Vol.75 (1-2), p.39-42
Main Authors: Rudkin, Glenda E, Rudkin, Adam K, Dracopoulos, George C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4326-29a4d5df83ea7e4f45e68b8df401809c99ca68d2b1b4b23a2bfe258c426ecb233
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4326-29a4d5df83ea7e4f45e68b8df401809c99ca68d2b1b4b23a2bfe258c426ecb233
container_end_page 42
container_issue 1-2
container_start_page 39
container_title ANZ journal of surgery
container_volume 75
creator Rudkin, Glenda E
Rudkin, Adam K
Dracopoulos, George C
description Background:  There are significant advantages to the practice of bilateral ankle block. However, clinicians are reluctant to employ this technique due to concerns over reliability, local anaesthetic longevity and toxicity, surgical efficiency, and patient comfort. Methods:  Sixty‐six patients undergoing bilateral ankle blocks during mid‐ and forefoot surgery were audited to determine success rate, local anaesthetic safety and efficacy, and patient acceptance. Intravenous sedation was administered both during insertion of ankle blocks and intraoperatively, as requested by the patient and as deemed necessary by the anaesthetist. The choice of local anaesthesia was either a 50/50 mixture of lignocaine 1.5% plain and ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL, ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL alone or ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL and clonidine 1 µg/kg. Results:  A total of 89% of patients had a successful bilateral ankle block. Ropivacaine and clonidine combination, ropivacaine, and ropivacaine and lignocaine combination provided a mean length of action of 17 h, 14 h and 8 h, respectively. No adverse local anaesthetic events were reported. Sixty‐one per cent of patients remembered intraoperative events; only one patient would choose not to have the procedure performed again under ankle blocks. Conclusions:  The present audit demonstrates that bilateral ankle blocks are a safe and efficient technique. With appropriate doses of sedative drugs both during insertion of the ankle block and surgery, patients remain comfortable.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03286.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_198335783</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>824977431</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4326-29a4d5df83ea7e4f45e68b8df401809c99ca68d2b1b4b23a2bfe258c426ecb233</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwCyhiixL8joPEolRQEFVZUER3IydxpLTpgziB9u9xSFS2eOOR557rmYuQR3BA3LlZBIRz4VMShQHFWASYUSWD3RHqHxrHXU04Yz10Zu0CYyJlJE5Rj4iQY0FEH13f54WuTKkLT6-XhfHiYpMs7a039Lblxm5NUuVfxtN1mlfn6CTThTUX3T1A748Ps9GTP3kdP4-GEz_hjEqfRpqnIs0UMzo0POPCSBWrNOOYKBwlUZRoqVIak5jHlGkaZ4YKlXAqTeIe2ABdtb5ugs_a2AoWm7pcuy-BRIoxEapGpFpR4sa0pclgW-YrXe6BYGhCggU0-0OTBTQhwW9IsHPoZedfxyuT_oFdKk5w1wq-88Ls_20Mw-lbUzneb_ncVmZ34HW5BBmyUMDHdAwv05lk85GEOfsBndeDAw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>198335783</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bilateral ankle blocks: A prospective audit</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Rudkin, Glenda E ; Rudkin, Adam K ; Dracopoulos, George C</creator><creatorcontrib>Rudkin, Glenda E ; Rudkin, Adam K ; Dracopoulos, George C</creatorcontrib><description>Background:  There are significant advantages to the practice of bilateral ankle block. However, clinicians are reluctant to employ this technique due to concerns over reliability, local anaesthetic longevity and toxicity, surgical efficiency, and patient comfort. Methods:  Sixty‐six patients undergoing bilateral ankle blocks during mid‐ and forefoot surgery were audited to determine success rate, local anaesthetic safety and efficacy, and patient acceptance. Intravenous sedation was administered both during insertion of ankle blocks and intraoperatively, as requested by the patient and as deemed necessary by the anaesthetist. The choice of local anaesthesia was either a 50/50 mixture of lignocaine 1.5% plain and ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL, ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL alone or ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL and clonidine 1 µg/kg. Results:  A total of 89% of patients had a successful bilateral ankle block. Ropivacaine and clonidine combination, ropivacaine, and ropivacaine and lignocaine combination provided a mean length of action of 17 h, 14 h and 8 h, respectively. No adverse local anaesthetic events were reported. Sixty‐one per cent of patients remembered intraoperative events; only one patient would choose not to have the procedure performed again under ankle blocks. Conclusions:  The present audit demonstrates that bilateral ankle blocks are a safe and efficient technique. With appropriate doses of sedative drugs both during insertion of the ankle block and surgery, patients remain comfortable.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1445-1433</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1445-2197</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03286.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15740515</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Pty</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Amides - administration &amp; dosage ; Anesthetics, Combined - administration &amp; dosage ; Ankle ; Clonidine - administration &amp; dosage ; conscious ; Female ; Foot - surgery ; Humans ; Lidocaine - administration &amp; dosage ; local anaesthesia ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Nerve Block ; Patient Satisfaction ; Prospective Studies ; sedation ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>ANZ journal of surgery, 2005-01, Vol.75 (1-2), p.39-42</ispartof><rights>2005 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4326-29a4d5df83ea7e4f45e68b8df401809c99ca68d2b1b4b23a2bfe258c426ecb233</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4326-29a4d5df83ea7e4f45e68b8df401809c99ca68d2b1b4b23a2bfe258c426ecb233</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15740515$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rudkin, Glenda E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rudkin, Adam K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dracopoulos, George C</creatorcontrib><title>Bilateral ankle blocks: A prospective audit</title><title>ANZ journal of surgery</title><addtitle>ANZ J Surg</addtitle><description>Background:  There are significant advantages to the practice of bilateral ankle block. However, clinicians are reluctant to employ this technique due to concerns over reliability, local anaesthetic longevity and toxicity, surgical efficiency, and patient comfort. Methods:  Sixty‐six patients undergoing bilateral ankle blocks during mid‐ and forefoot surgery were audited to determine success rate, local anaesthetic safety and efficacy, and patient acceptance. Intravenous sedation was administered both during insertion of ankle blocks and intraoperatively, as requested by the patient and as deemed necessary by the anaesthetist. The choice of local anaesthesia was either a 50/50 mixture of lignocaine 1.5% plain and ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL, ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL alone or ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL and clonidine 1 µg/kg. Results:  A total of 89% of patients had a successful bilateral ankle block. Ropivacaine and clonidine combination, ropivacaine, and ropivacaine and lignocaine combination provided a mean length of action of 17 h, 14 h and 8 h, respectively. No adverse local anaesthetic events were reported. Sixty‐one per cent of patients remembered intraoperative events; only one patient would choose not to have the procedure performed again under ankle blocks. Conclusions:  The present audit demonstrates that bilateral ankle blocks are a safe and efficient technique. With appropriate doses of sedative drugs both during insertion of the ankle block and surgery, patients remain comfortable.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Amides - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Anesthetics, Combined - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Ankle</subject><subject>Clonidine - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>conscious</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Foot - surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lidocaine - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>local anaesthesia</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nerve Block</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>sedation</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>1445-1433</issn><issn>1445-2197</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwCyhiixL8joPEolRQEFVZUER3IydxpLTpgziB9u9xSFS2eOOR557rmYuQR3BA3LlZBIRz4VMShQHFWASYUSWD3RHqHxrHXU04Yz10Zu0CYyJlJE5Rj4iQY0FEH13f54WuTKkLT6-XhfHiYpMs7a039Lblxm5NUuVfxtN1mlfn6CTThTUX3T1A748Ps9GTP3kdP4-GEz_hjEqfRpqnIs0UMzo0POPCSBWrNOOYKBwlUZRoqVIak5jHlGkaZ4YKlXAqTeIe2ABdtb5ugs_a2AoWm7pcuy-BRIoxEapGpFpR4sa0pclgW-YrXe6BYGhCggU0-0OTBTQhwW9IsHPoZedfxyuT_oFdKk5w1wq-88Ls_20Mw-lbUzneb_ncVmZ34HW5BBmyUMDHdAwv05lk85GEOfsBndeDAw</recordid><startdate>200501</startdate><enddate>200501</enddate><creator>Rudkin, Glenda E</creator><creator>Rudkin, Adam K</creator><creator>Dracopoulos, George C</creator><general>Blackwell Science Pty</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200501</creationdate><title>Bilateral ankle blocks: A prospective audit</title><author>Rudkin, Glenda E ; Rudkin, Adam K ; Dracopoulos, George C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4326-29a4d5df83ea7e4f45e68b8df401809c99ca68d2b1b4b23a2bfe258c426ecb233</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Amides - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Anesthetics, Combined - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Ankle</topic><topic>Clonidine - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>conscious</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Foot - surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lidocaine - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>local anaesthesia</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nerve Block</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>sedation</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rudkin, Glenda E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rudkin, Adam K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dracopoulos, George C</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>ANZ journal of surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rudkin, Glenda E</au><au>Rudkin, Adam K</au><au>Dracopoulos, George C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bilateral ankle blocks: A prospective audit</atitle><jtitle>ANZ journal of surgery</jtitle><addtitle>ANZ J Surg</addtitle><date>2005-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>1-2</issue><spage>39</spage><epage>42</epage><pages>39-42</pages><issn>1445-1433</issn><eissn>1445-2197</eissn><abstract>Background:  There are significant advantages to the practice of bilateral ankle block. However, clinicians are reluctant to employ this technique due to concerns over reliability, local anaesthetic longevity and toxicity, surgical efficiency, and patient comfort. Methods:  Sixty‐six patients undergoing bilateral ankle blocks during mid‐ and forefoot surgery were audited to determine success rate, local anaesthetic safety and efficacy, and patient acceptance. Intravenous sedation was administered both during insertion of ankle blocks and intraoperatively, as requested by the patient and as deemed necessary by the anaesthetist. The choice of local anaesthesia was either a 50/50 mixture of lignocaine 1.5% plain and ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL, ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL alone or ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL and clonidine 1 µg/kg. Results:  A total of 89% of patients had a successful bilateral ankle block. Ropivacaine and clonidine combination, ropivacaine, and ropivacaine and lignocaine combination provided a mean length of action of 17 h, 14 h and 8 h, respectively. No adverse local anaesthetic events were reported. Sixty‐one per cent of patients remembered intraoperative events; only one patient would choose not to have the procedure performed again under ankle blocks. Conclusions:  The present audit demonstrates that bilateral ankle blocks are a safe and efficient technique. With appropriate doses of sedative drugs both during insertion of the ankle block and surgery, patients remain comfortable.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Pty</pub><pmid>15740515</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03286.x</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1445-1433
ispartof ANZ journal of surgery, 2005-01, Vol.75 (1-2), p.39-42
issn 1445-1433
1445-2197
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_198335783
source Wiley
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Amides - administration & dosage
Anesthetics, Combined - administration & dosage
Ankle
Clonidine - administration & dosage
conscious
Female
Foot - surgery
Humans
Lidocaine - administration & dosage
local anaesthesia
Male
Middle Aged
Nerve Block
Patient Satisfaction
Prospective Studies
sedation
Surgery
title Bilateral ankle blocks: A prospective audit
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T19%3A48%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bilateral%20ankle%20blocks:%20A%20prospective%20audit&rft.jtitle=ANZ%20journal%20of%20surgery&rft.au=Rudkin,%20Glenda%20E&rft.date=2005-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=39&rft.epage=42&rft.pages=39-42&rft.issn=1445-1433&rft.eissn=1445-2197&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03286.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E824977431%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4326-29a4d5df83ea7e4f45e68b8df401809c99ca68d2b1b4b23a2bfe258c426ecb233%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=198335783&rft_id=info:pmid/15740515&rfr_iscdi=true