Peripheral Foot Blockade Versus Popliteal Fossa Nerve Block: A Prospective Randomized Trial in 51 Patients

• Published in: The Journal of foot and ankle surgery 2005-09, Vol.44 (5), p.354-357
• Main Authors: Migues, Atilio, Slullitel, Gaston, Vescovo, Anibal, Droblas, Felipe, Carrasco, Marina, Perrin Turenne, Hugo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Anesthetics, Local - therapeutic use; ankle block; Biological and medical sciences; Bupivacaine - therapeutic use; Female; foot; Forefoot, Human - surgery; General anesthesia. Technics. Complications. Neuromuscular blocking. Premedication. Surgical preparation. Sedation; Humans; Lidocaine - therapeutic use; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Nerve Block - methods; Patient Satisfaction; popliteal; Prospective Studies; regional anesthesia; Sciatic Nerve
• ISSN: 1067-2516; 1542-2224
• DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2005.07.005

The majority of foot and ankle operations are performed on an outpatient basis and often under some form of regional anesthesia. In this prospective, randomized study of 51 patients undergoing elective unilateral forefoot procedures, we compared 2 different anesthetic techniques: the peripheral foot blockade and the popliteal sciatic nerve block. Variables assessed included the quality of surgical anesthesia, postoperative analgesia, and the incidence of postoperative complications. The anesthesia was classified as effective if it was the sole anesthetic technique for the forefoot surgery. We found successful results in both groups: 92% in the foot block group and 96% in the popliteal block group. Analysis of time required to perform the anesthetic procedure showed a significant difference between the 2 groups, with foot block being considerably faster (14.3 minutes vs 19.2 minutes for popliteal block) ( P = .0078). Foot block patients demonstrated 10.96 hours of analgesia, whereas popliteal block patients exhibited 14.32 hours ( P = .132). With a mean follow-up of 5.7 months, we did not find anesthesia-related complications in any of the patients. Both techniques showed a high level of safety and efficacy, with no significant difference detected between them. Our patients showed a high rate of satisfaction with both procedures (96% for foot block patients and 96.1% for popliteal block patients) and reported a good discharge disposition. These data show that both procedures are safe and effective anesthetic techniques and well suited to forefoot ambulatory surgery.