Anesthesia of the paralumbar fossa and abdominal wall is necessary to perform common surgeries in standing cattle and can be induced by local anesthetic techniques such as incision line infiltration; inverted L nerve block, proximal or distal paravertebral nerve block, or epidural block; and thoracolumbar subarachnoid anesthesia.1 For laparotomy, the PPNB or DPNB is preferred.1,2 Both the PPNB and DPNB desensitize a relatively larger body area, compared with that achieved by the infiltration technique,1 and are performed by palpating the transverse process of the T13, L1, and L2 vertebral bodies. However, identification of the anatomic landmarks for the PPNB or DPNB may be difficult in obese and heavily muscled animals or impaired because of variation in anatomic pathways of the nerves,1,2 and the risk of damaging blood vessels associated with nerve blocks is high.1 Thus, the success rate of blockade techniques performed without a method of imaging the spinal nerves is variable.3,4 Advantages of ultrasound guidance when performing nerve blockade include identification of neural and adjacent anatomic structures, detection of anatomic variations, assessment of the spread of the local anesthetic, and reduction in the volume of local anesthetic required.5
In cattle, the use of ultrasound guidance for needle placement as part of the PPNB has been described,3 with an anesthetic success rate similar to that obtained with the blockade technique performed with unguided needle placement.4 However, the articular processes of the vertebral segments and not the paravertebral nerves were identified.3 The purpose of the study reported here was to determine whether ultrasound-guided identification of the T13, L1, and L2 spinal nerves for needle placement would improve blockade effectiveness, compared with that achieved with the PPNB and DPNB, in calves. We hypothesized that even when a lower dose of an anesthetic solution is administered, the effectiveness of the UGPNB would be greater than that of either the PPNB or DPNB.
Presented in abstract form at the 19th International Bovine Medicine Congress of ANEMBE, Oviedo, Spain, June 2014.
Distal paravertebral nerve blockade technique without ultrasound guidance
Proximal paravertebral nerve blockade technique without ultrasound guidance
Ultrasound-guided paravertebral nerve blockade technique
Xilagesic 2%, Calier, Barcelona, Spain.
T61, MSD, Salamanca, Spain.
Logiq Book XP, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.
Becton Dickinson, Madrid, Spain.
Anesvet, Ovejero, León, Spain.
IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 19.0, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY.
SAS, version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
1. Skarda RT. Local and regional anesthesia in ruminants and swine. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 1996; 12:579–626.
3. Kramer AH, Doherr MG, Stoffel MH, et al. Ultrasound-guided proximal paravertebral anaesthesia in cattle. Vet Anaesth Analg 2014; 41:534–542.
4. Nuss K, Eiberle BJ, Sauter-Louis C. Comparison of two methods of local anaesthesia for laparotomy in cattle. Tierarztliche Prax G N 2012; 40:141–149.
5. Marhofer P, Harrop-Griffiths W, Kettner SC, et al. Fifteen years of ultrasound guidance in regional anaesthesia: part 1. Brit J Anaesth 2010; 104:538–546.
6. Hutchinson J, Runge W, Mulvey M, et al. Burkholderia cepacia infections associated with intrinsically contaminated ultrasound gel: the role of microbial degradation of parabens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25:291–296.
7. Weaver AD, St Jean G, Steiner A. General considerations and anaesthesia. In: Weaver AD, St Jean G, Steiner A, eds. Bovine surgery and lameness. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing, 2005; 22–26.
8. Re M, Blanco-Murcia J, Villaescusa Fernandez A, et al. Ultrasound-guided anaesthetic blockade of the pelvic limb in calves. Vet J 2014; 200:434–439.
9. Costa-Farre C, Blanch XS, Cruz JI, et al. Ultrasound guidance for the performance of sciatic and saphenous nerve blocks in dogs. Vet J 2011; 187:221–224.
10. Nakamura T, Popitz-Bergez F, Birknes J, et al. The critical role of concentration for lidocaine block of peripheral nerve in vivo: studies of function and drug uptake in the rat. Anesthesiology 2003; 99:1189–1197.
12. Campoy L, Bezuidenhout AJ, Gleed RD, et al. Ultrasound-guided approach for axillary brachial plexus, femoral nerve, and sciatic nerve blocks in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg 2010; 37:144–153.
13. Vandeweerd JM, Desbrosse F, Clegg P, et al. Innervation and nerve injections of the lumbar spine of the horse: a cadaveric study. Equine Vet J 2007; 39:59–63.
14. Bagshaw HS, Larenza MP, Seiler GS. A technique for ultrasound-guided paravertebral brachial plexus injections in dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2009; 50:649–654.
15. Rioja E, Sinclair M, Chalmers H, et al. Comparison of three techniques for paravertebral brachial plexus blockade in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg 2012; 39:190–200.
16. Berg R. Regiones abdominis. In: Berg R, ed. Anatomía topográfica y aplicada de los animales domésticos. Madrid: Alfa Centauro, 1987;178–181.
19. Raundal PM, Andersen PH, Toft N, et al. Handheld mechanical nociceptive threshold testing in dairy cows—intra-individual variation, inter-observer agreement and variation over time. Vet Anaesth Analg 2014; 41:660–669.
20. Grint NJ, Whay HR, Beths T, et al. Challenges of thermal nociceptive threshold testing in the donkey. Vet Anaesth Analg 2015; 42:205–214.
21. Errando CL, Mínguez A. Some misleadings about ketamine and their preservatives. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1998; 23:323–324.