Readiness for surgery after axillary block: single or multiple injection techniques. [Comparison of transarterial and multiple nerve stimulation techniques for axillary block using lidocaine with epinephrine.]. Comparison of transarterial and multiple nerve stimulation techniques for an initial axillary block by 45 mL of mepivacaine 1% with adrenaline. A prospective, randomized comparison between ultrasound and nerve stimulation guidance for multiple injection axillary brachial plexus block. Double-injection method using peripheral nerve stimulator is superior to single injection in axillary plexus block. A comparison of three methods of axillary brachial plexus anaesthesia. Efficacy of vertical infraclavicular plexus block vs. modified axillary plexus block: a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study. A comparison of the vertical infraclavicular and axillary approaches for brachial plexus anaesthesia. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block: a comparative study with nerve stimulator-guided method. Axillary brachial plexus block using peripheral nerve stimulator: a comparison between double- and triple-injection techniques. Comparison of two neurostimulation techniques for axillary brachial plexus blockade. A comparison of a single-stimulation lateral infraclavicular plexus block with a triple-stimulation axillary block. Comparison of the clinical efficacy of three perivascular techniques for axillary brachial plexus block. Comparison of transarterial and multiple nerve stimulation techniques for axillary block using a high dose of mepivacaine with adrenaline. Axillary plexus block using a peripheral nerve stimulator: single or multiple injections. [Axillary brachial plexus anesthesia. How many nerve stimulation responses do we look for?]. Ultrasound guidance improves the success rate of a perivascular axillary plexus block. A comparison of four stimulation patterns in axillary block.
We have assessed prospectively the time to readiness for surgery following axillary block (sum of block performance and latency times) in 80 patients. The brachial plexus was identified using a nerve stimulator, and anaesthetized with 45 mL of mepivacaine 1% with adrenaline 5 micrograms mL-1. In group 1 (single injection) the whole volume of mepivacaine was injected after locating only one of the plexus nerves. In group 2 (multiple injections) at least three plexus nerves were located, and the volume of mepivacaine was divided between them. Sensory block was assessed by a blinded observer every 10 min. Patchy analgesia was supplemented after electrolocating the unblocked nerves after 20, 30 or 40 min. The patient was pronounced ready for surgery when analgesia was present in all areas to be operated upon, which always included the three nerves to the hand. The single injection technique required less time for block performance (mean 5.5 min) than multiple injections (mean 9.5 min), P < 0.0001. However, latency of the block was longer and the requirement for supplemental nerve blocks was greater, after single injections (33 min and 57%) than after multiple injections (15.5 min and 7%, respectively), P < 0.0001. As a result, readiness for surgery was achieved faster in group 2 (25 min), than in group 1 (38.5 min), P < 0.0001. After supplementation, block effectiveness was 100% in group 1 and 98% in group 2 (NS). The frequency of adverse effects (vessel puncture or paraesthesia) was similar in both groups. No neurological sequelae were observed. We conclude that the multiple injection technique takes longer to perform than single injection, but that readiness for surgery is faster because of shorter block latency and better spread of analgesia. High-dose transarterial technique results in highly effective axillary block. The multiple nerve stimulation technique (MNS) requires more time and experience. This prospective study aimed at comparing onset and success rate of multiple-injection axillary brachial plexus block using two methods of nerve location: transarterial or multiple nerve stimulation technique.
                Axillary block was initially induced with 800 mg lidocaine with epinephrine. The transarterial group received deeply injected 30 mL of 1.6% lidocaine with epinephrine, and 20 mL superficially to the axillary artery. For the multiple nerve stimulation group, three terminal motor nerves were electrolocated and blocked with 20 mL, 20 mL and 10 mL. Blockade was considered effective when analgesia was present in all sensory nerves distal to the elbow.
                Onset (8.8 +/- 2.3 min versus 10.2 +/- 2.4 min; p-value = 0.010) was significantly shorter in the transarterial group. Complete sensory block of all four nerves (median, ulnar, radial and musculocutaneus) was achieved in 92.5% versus 83.3% for multiple nerve stimulation group and transarterial group, respectively, without significant difference (p = 0.68). Musculocutaneous nerve was significantly easier to be blocked with the aid of peripheral nerve stimulator (p = 0.034).
                Both MNS technique for axillary block with nerve stimulator (3 injections) and transarterial technique (2 injections) promote similar results. Musculocutaneous nerve is more easily blocked with the aid of peripheral nerve stimulator. MNS technique has required less supplementary blocks and has delayed beginning of surgery. The single-injection axillary block is rapidly performed but gives unpredictable results. Axillary block by multiple nerve stimulation technique (MNS) gives better results, but takes longer to perform. Transarterial (TA) injections of high doses of local anaesthetics are very successful. This double-blind study compared both block effectiveness and anaesthesiologic time consumption in 100 patients, having an axillary block by either TA or MNS techniques.
                45 mL of 1% mepivacaine with adrenaline 5 microg/mL was used in each patient. Five mL was injected subcutaneously. In the TA group, 20 mL was injected deep to, and 20 mL superficial to the axillary artery. In the MNS group, four terminal motor nerves were electrolocated in the axilla, and injected with 10 mL each. Analgesia was assessed every 10 min and when needed supplemented after 30 min. The block was considered successful when analgesia was present in all sensory nerve areas distal to the elbow.
                MNS group required 10+/-2 min (mean+/-1 SD) for the initial block performance compared with 7+/-2 min for TA group, P<0.001. Latency of the initial block was shorter and the frequency of supplemental analgesia lower in the MNS group (mean 17 min and 12%), than in the TA group (25 min and 38%, respectively), P<0.001. All incomplete blocks were successfully supplemented by electrolocating the unblocked nerves. However, the total time to obtain 100% success rate was shorter in the MNS group (30 min), than in the TA group (38 min), P<0.001. The adverse effects (accidental intravascular injections and axillary haematomas) were fewer in the MNS group.
                In the hands of anaesthetists experienced in nerve electrolocation, the MNS technique of an initial axillary block by four separate injections of 10 mL of mepivacaine produces faster and more extensive block than the TA technique by two separate injections of 20 mL. Hence, the MNS technique requires fewer supplementary blocks and results in faster patient readiness for surgery than the TA technique. This prospective, randomized, blinded study tested the hypothesis that ultrasound guidance can shorten the onset time of axillary brachial plexus block as compared with nerve stimulation guidance when using a multiple injection technique.
                Sixty American Society of Anesthesiology physical status I-III patients receiving axillary brachial plexus block with 20 ml ropivacaine, 0.75%, using a multiple injection technique, were randomly allocated to receive either nerve stimulation (group NS, n = 30), or ultrasound guidance (group US, n = 30) for nerve location. A blinded observer recorded the onset of sensory and motor blocks, the need for general anesthesia (failed block) or greater than 100 microg fentanyl (insufficient block) to complete surgery, procedure-related pain, success rate, and patient satisfaction.
                The median (range) number of needle passes was 4 (3-8) in group US and 8 (5-13) in group NS (P = 0.002). The onset of sensory block was shorter in group US (14 +/- 6 min) than in group NS (18 +/- 6 min) (P = 0.01), whereas no differences were observed in onset of motor block (24 +/- 8 min in group US and 25 +/- 8 min in group NS; P = 0.33) and readiness to surgery (26 +/- 8 min in group US and 28 +/- 9 min in group NS; P = 0.48). No failed block was reported in either group. Insufficient block was observed in 1 patient (3%) of group US and 2 patients (6%) of group NS (P = 0.61). Procedure-related pain was reported in 6 patients (20%) of group US and 14 patients (48%) of group NS (P = 0.028); patient acceptance was similarly good in the two groups.
                Multiple injection axillary block with ultrasound guidance provided similar success rates and comparable incidence of complication as compared with nerve stimulation guidance. Axillary block using a single-injection method does not always provide effective analgesia. This study examined whether a double axillary block injection technique is superior to a single injection axillary block.
                Fifty patients were randomly allocated to two groups. In group I (single injection), the whole volume of local anesthetic (0.7 mL/kg) was injected after locating only one of the median, radial, or ulnar nerves. In group 2 (double injection), half of the volume was injected after locating one nerve and the other half after locating another peripheral nerve. Bupivacaine 0.5% and prilocaine 1% (1:1 volumes) were used as local anesthetic. A peripheral nerve stimulator was used to identify the nerves. Sensory block of seven nerves and motor block of four nerves were tested after 40 minutes.
                Complete sensory and motor block (scores 2 or 3 on scale 0-3) in all four main nerves (median, ulnar, radial, musculocutaneous) was achieved in 3 (12%) versus 20 (80%) patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .000001). Primary success rate (no need for supplemental nerve block) was 52% in group 1 and 92% in group 2 (P = .0016).
                A double-injection method in axillary block provides excellent analgesia and motor block compared with a single-injection method. Moreover, the need for supplemental nerve blocks is significantly decreased. One hundred patients scheduled for elective outpatient hand surgery had blockade of the axillary brachial plexus by one of three techniques; insertion of a catheter into the brachial plexus sheath (n = 25), use of paraesthesia (n = 50) or use of the nerve stimulator (n = 25) to localise the plexus. Only two patients required general anaesthesia for the planned surgery. Assessment of the dermatomes blocked did not demonstrate a statistical difference between the success rates of the three groups. The more nerves detected in the paraesthesia and the nerve stimulator groups before injection of local anaesthetic the higher the success rate of the block. We advocate use of the nerve stimulator technique in view of the possible risk of neurological damage associated with paraesthesia and the technical difficulties with the catheter technique, for routine brachial plexus blockade. Despite containing severe risks, infraclavicular approaches to the brachial plexus gained increasing popularity. Likewise, the vertical infraclavicular plexus block improved anesthesia compared to the standard axillary approach but contains the risk of pneumothorax. Therefore we modified the standard axillary technique by inserting a proximal directed catheter, referred to as a high axillary plexus block. We prospectively compared quality and onset of neural blockade after vertical infraclavicular plexus block (VIP) and high axillary plexus block (HAP) in two randomized groups (30 patients in each).
                In group VIP the insulated needle was inserted midway between the ventral process of the acromion and the jugular notch. In group HAP, first an axillary needle was placed. Through this a stimulating catheter was inserted in a proximal direction (10-15 cm); correct placement was confirmed by nerve stimulation. All patients received 40 ml ropivacaine 0.75% (300 mg). Discriminating between analgesia and anesthesia, a blinded observer assessed progression of neural blockade every 5 min for 60 min by pin prick. Incomplete blocks were supplemented 60 min after initial injection.
                All patients in both groups demonstrated sufficient surgical anesthesia. No patient needed systemic supplementation or general anesthesia. However, vertical infraclavicular plexus block indicated superior anesthesia compared to high axillary plexus block, regarding musculocutaneous, axillary and radial nerve, which were completely blocked with a higher success rate and in a shorter time interval (P < 0.05).
                While both techniques provide sufficient surgical anesthesia, vertical infraclavicular plexus block demonstrated a partially higher success rate and a faster onset than high axillary plexus block. This prospective, randomized study compared the efficacy of the vertical infraclavicular and axillary approaches using a single injection blockade of the brachial plexus. The primary endpoint was complete blockade in dermatomes C5-Th1, while secondary endpoints included onset time, motor block, block performance time, surgical success rate, patient satisfaction, and side-effects/complications.
                Sixty patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, scheduled for surgery of the forearm or hand received either a vertical infraclavicular (n = 30) or an axillary block (n = 30). A single injection of 0.5 ml/kg ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml was made after electrolocalization of nerve fibres corresponding to the median nerve at maximum 0.5 mA (2 Hz, 0.1 ms). Onset and distribution of analgesia and motor block were assessed at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 60 min after the local anaesthetic injection. A complete block was defined as analgesia in all dermatomes (C5-Th1) at 60 min post-injection.
                The vertical infraclavicular approach provided complete blockade in 29 patients (97%) and the axillary approach in 23 patients (77%). Analgesia in C5-C6 dermatomes and corresponding motor block occurred significantly more frequently in the vertical infraclavicular approach, which also had the shortest onset time. Block procedure was quicker in the axillary approach. Side-effects were similar in both groups, and there were no permanent sequelae. Patient satisfaction was equally high in both groups.
                The vertical infraclavicular approach provides a more complete block than the axillary approach when using a single injection technique and equal volumes/doses of local anaesthetic. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of axillary brachial plexus block using an ultrasound-guided method with the nerve stimulator-guided method. We also compared the efficacy of ultrasound-guided single-injection with those of double-injection for the quality of the block.
                Ninety patients scheduled for surgery of the forearm or hand were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 30 per group), i.e., nerve stimulator-guided and double-injection (ND) group, ultrasound-guided and double-injection (UD) group, and ultrasound-guided and single-injection (US) group. Each patient received 0.5 ml kg(-1) of 1.5% lidocaine with 5 mg kg(-1) epinephrine. Patients in the ND group received half the volume of lidocaine injected near the median and radial nerves after identification using a nerve stimulator. Patients in the UD group received half the volume of lidocaine injected around the lateral and medial aspects of the axillary artery, while those in the US group were given the entire volume near the lateral aspect of the axillary artery. The extent of the sensory blockade of the seven nerves and motor blockades of the four nerves were assessed 40 min after the performance of axillary brachial plexus block.
                Seventy percent of the patients in the ND and US groups as well as 73% of the patients in the UD group obtained satisfactory sensory and motor blockades. The success rate of performing the block was 90% in patients in the ND and UD groups and 70% in the US group. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the ND group (20%) compared with that in the US group and the UD group (0%; p = 0.03).
                Ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block, using either single- or double-injection technique, provided excellent sensory and motor blockades with fewer adverse events. The multiple-injection technique for axillary block, in which the main 4 nerves of the plexus are located by a nerve stimulator and separately injected, has been shown to produce a high success rate. However, this technique may prove to be more difficult and time-consuming than other methods. Therefore, a simplified technique, with a reduced number of injections, might be desirable. A comparison between 2- and 3-injection techniques was made in the present double-blind study.
                One hundred patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups. In group 3N, the radial, median, and musculocutaneous nerves were located by a nerve stimulator and injections made. In group 2N, the radial and median nerves were located and injections made. Forty milliliters of local anesthetic was used.
                A greater success rate for anesthetizing the musculocutaneous nerve was found in group 3N (98% v 80%; P <.005). No differences between the groups were found in the success rate for blocking the radial, median, and ulnar nerves. The rate of complete block (all the sensory areas distal to the elbow) was 90% in group 3N and 76% in group 2N. The time to perform the block was shorter in group 2N (5 +/- 1 v 6 +/- 1 minutes; P <.001).
                The 2-injection technique offers a success rate in blocking the 3 nerves innervating the hand similar to that obtained with the 3-injection technique. The latter approach should be considered when the musculocutaneous nerve distribution is involved in the surgical area. This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared two techniques of axillary brachial plexus block using a peripheral nerve stimulator. Both groups received initial musculocutaneous nerve block followed by either a single injection on median nerve stimulation (group 1) or a double injection divided between median and radial nerves (group 2). All 60 patients received a total of 30 ml of lidocaine 15 mg/ml with epinephrine 5 microg/ml. Complete sensory blockade of all six peripheral nerves occurred in 53% and 97% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P<0.001), with a more rapid onset of blockade occurring in group 2 patients (P<0.001). Complete motor blockade was evident in 30% and 83% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P<0.001). A single-stimulation infraclavicular brachial plexus block (ICB) is safe and easy to perform, although underused. This technique was compared with a triple-stimulation axillary block (AxB).
                One hundred patients scheduled for hand and forearm surgery were randomly allocated to 2 groups. ICB was performed with the needle inserted above the coracoid process in the upper lateral angle of the infraclavicular fossa and directed vertically until nerve stimulation elicited a distal motor response (median, radial, or ulnar). A single 40-mL bolus of ropivacaine 0.75% was injected. In the AxB group, 3 stimulations were performed to identify median or ulnar, radial, and musculocutaneous nerves, followed by an infiltration near the medial brachial and antebrachial cutaneous nerves. The same 40 mL of ropivacaine 0.75% was injected. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed at 5-minute intervals over 30 minutes.
                The time to block performance was shorter in the ICB than in the AxB group (2.5 +/- 1.9 minutes v 6.0 +/- 2.8 minutes, P <.001). The success rate (complete block in median, radial, ulnar, musculocutaneous, and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerves) was comparable in the 2 groups (90% v 88% in groups ICB and AxB, respectively). Block extension was comparable, except for a higher rate of block completion in the axillary nerve distribution in group ICB and in the medial brachial cutaneous nerve in group AxB. The onset of each nerve block was comparable except for a faster onset for the musculocutaneous nerve in group AxB (8 +/- 3 v 10 +/- 5 minutes).
                A single shot ICB is equally effective as a triple-nerve stimulation AxB. This study compared the efficacy of three perivascular techniques of axillary block.
                In group 1, all of the local anesthetic was injected after advancing the needle through the axillary artery (back of artery, n = 20); in group 2, after withdrawing slightly from the artery (front of artery, n = 20); and in group 3, half of the anesthetic was injected after advancing through and half after withdrawing from the axillary artery (half and half, n = 20). The local anesthetic used for the axillary block was 50 ml of 1.5% mepivacaine with epinephrine 1:200,000.
                The groups did not differ significantly in the incidence of analgesia or anesthesia expected in the median nerve distribution, where there was a significantly lower incidence of anesthesia in the back of the artery group. This group also had a slower onset of anesthesia for the median and the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerves.
                There was no significant difference in the number of patients requiring supplementation, with five patients in the back group (25%), three patients in the front group (15%), and one patient in the half and half group (5%) requiring supplementation for the surgical procedure. High-dose transarterial (TA) technique results in high effectiveness of the axillary block. The technique is fast and simple, but does not produce a satisfactory success rate when using the manufacturer's recommended dose of mepivacaine. The multiple nerve stimulation (MNS) technique requires more time and experience. This double-blind study compared effectiveness, safety and the time used to obtain an effective analgesia in 101 patients, having an axillary block by either TA or MNS techniques.
                Mepivacaine with adrenaline (MEPA), 850 mg, was used for the initial block. Five millilitres of 1% solution was injected subcutaneously. In the TA group, 20 mL of 2% solution was injected deep to, and 20 mL superficial to the axillary artery. In the MNS group, four terminal motor nerves were electrolocated in the axilla, and injected with 10 mL each. Analgesia was assessed every 10 min and, when needed, supplemented after 30 min. The block was effective when analgesia was present in all sensory nerve areas distal to the elbow.
                The MNS group required median 11 min for block performance compared with 8 min for the TA group (P < 0.001). Latency of the initial block was shorter and the frequency of supplemental analgesia lower in the MNS group (median 10 min and 6%) than in the TA group (30 min and 36%, respectively), P < 0.001. All incomplete blocks were successfully supplemented. However, the total time to obtain an effective block was shorter in the MNS group (23 min) than in the TA group (37 min), P < 0.001. Two patients in each group had signs and symptoms of systemic toxicity, the most serious being atrial fibrillation and temporary loss of consciousness in a cardiovascularly medicated patient. The local adverse effects (intravascular injections and haematomas) were fewer in the MNS group, P < 0.001.
                The MNS technique of axillary block by four injections of 10 mL of 2% MEPA produces faster and more extensive block than the TA technique by two injections of 20 mL. Therefore, the MNS technique requires fewer supplementary blocks and results in faster patient readiness for surgery. However, high doses of MEPA may result in dangerous systemic toxic reactions. This prospective, randomized, double-blind study was undertaken to evaluate the success rates of axillary brachial plexus block performed with the help of a peripheral nerve stimulator when either one, two or four of the major nerves of the brachial plexus were located. Seventy-five patients undergoing upper limb surgery were randomly allocated to one of the following five groups according to the nerve and number of nerves to be located; G-1: musculo-cutaneous, radial, median and ulnar nerves; G-2: musculo-cutaneous plus one of the other three nerves; G-3: radial nerve; G-4: median nerve; G-5: ulnar nerve. The sensory block was evaluated before surgery and cutaneous anaesthesia was considered to be present when the needles of a Wartenberg Pinwheel were no longer felt in all the dermatomes of the nerves implicated in the surgical site. Otherwise, the block was considered to need completion before surgery. Only one out of the 15 patients in G-1 and G-2 needed completion of their block before surgery whereas seven out of 15 for G-3 and eight out of 15 for G-4 and G-5 needed completion of their block (P less than 0.01). We conclude that when performing an axillary block with the help of a peripheral nerve stimulator, stimulation of the musculo-cutaneous nerve and one other nerve or stimulation of all four major nerves of the brachial plexus gives a higher success rate than stimulation of only one nerve, whether the stimulated nerve is the median, radial or ulnar. To determine whether axillary block with nerve stimulation involving the location of four motor responses is more effective than other techniques using fewer locations, without increasing patient discomfort or the rate of complications.
                Prospective, randomized single blind study enrolling 100 patients undergoing orthopedic surgery under axillary block with nerve stimulation. Patients were randomly assigned to five groups of 20 patients: in group A, 4 motor responses were located; in group B three were located (musculocutaneous nerve and two more); in group C two responses, the musculocutaneous nerve and one more; in group D two non-musculocutaneous responses; and in group E only one non-musculocutaneous response was located (medial, cubital or radial). We used 40 ml of 1% mepivacaine. Data collected were location of responses, duration of blockade, adverse events occurring during the technique; level of motor and sensory block; tolerance to the tourniquet; level of patient discomfort; and presence of complications.
                A full sensory block was achieved for 100% in group A, 90% in group B, 60% in group C, 75% in group D and 40% in group E. Patient discomfort was similar in all groups. One patient continued to suffer postoperative neurologic dysfunction three months after the block.
                Locating 4 responses gives the greatest degree of assurance of obtaining full sensory block without increasing patient discomfort or rate of complications. Traditional approaches to performing brachial plexus blocks via the axillary approach have varying success rates. The main objective of this study was to evaluate if a specific technique of ultrasound guidance could improve the success of axillary blocks in comparison to a two injection transarterial technique.
                Fifty-six ASA physical status I-III patients presenting for elective hand surgery were prospectively randomized to receive an axillary block performed by either a transarterial technique (Group TA) or an ultrasound-guided perivascular approach (Group US). Both groups received a total of 30 ml of 1.5% lidocaine (225 mg) with 5 microg/ml epinephrine. Patients were then evaluated for block onset in specific nerve distributions and whether or not the block acted as a surgical anesthetic.
                Group TA sustained more failures defined as conversion to general anesthesia or the inability to localize the artery [Group TA eight patients (29%) vs. Group US in which 0 patients required conversion to general anesthesia (0%) P < 0.01]. Group US demonstrated a reduction in performance times vs. Group TA (7.9 +/- 3.9 min vs. 11.1 +/- 5.7 min, P < 0.05). By 30 min post-injection, there were no significant differences between groups TA and US in terms of the proportion of patients demonstrating a complete motor or sensory loss.
                Ultrasonographic guidance improves the overall success rate of axillary blocks in comparison to a transarterial technique. Insufficient spread of the local anesthetic toward the retroarterial region of the neurovascular space may be responsible for inconsistent anesthesia of the upper limb after single-injection axillary block. We hypothesized that injection of the local anesthetic on a single radial-nerve stimulation would produce the same extent of anesthesia as either a single median-nerve stimulation, a double-stimulation technique (radial and musculocutaneous nerves), or a triple-stimulation technique (radial, musculocutaneous, and median nerves).
                One hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned to receive an axillary block by either median-nerve, radial-nerve, radial-nerve plus musculocutaneous-nerve, or triple-nerve stimulation with 40 mL of plain 1.5% mepivacaine. Patients were assessed for sensory block by the pinprick method at 5 and 20 minutes.
                Radial-nerve stimulation produced more extensive anesthesia than did median-nerve stimulation. The rate of anesthesia at 20 minutes in the median-nerve cutaneous distribution was similar after median-nerve stimulation or radial-nerve stimulation. The ulnar nerve was more frequently blocked at 20 minutes after radial-nerve stimulation than after median-nerve stimulation. Extent of anesthesia at 20 minutes after radial-nerve plus musculocutaneous-nerve stimulation was similar to that produced by triple-nerve stimulation, except for lower rates of anesthesia that corresponded to the median nerve. All of the differences were statistically significant.
                Musculocutaneous-nerve stimulation and radial-nerve stimulation play predominant roles in the success of axillary brachial plexus block, although a triple-nerve stimulation technique is still required to produce complete anesthesia of the upper limb.
This review provides evidence that multiple injection techniques using nerve stimulation for axillary plexus block produce more effective anaesthesia than either double or single injection techniques. However, there was insufficient evidence for a significant difference in other outcomes, including safety.