Share this article on:

The Electrophysiological Effect of Dextrose 5% in Water on Single-Shot Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

Tsui, Ban C. H. MSc, MD, FRCPC; Kropelin, Bruce MD, FRCPC

doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000153020.84780.A5
Regional Anesthesia: Research Report

When performing regional anesthesia, a small volume of local anesthetic or normal saline abolishes a motor response induced by a low current (0.5 mA). In this case series we describe the electrophysiological effect of a nonconducting (dextrose 5% in water, D5W) injectate on a motor response elicited by low current electrical stimulation. Twenty-nine peripheral nerve blocks were performed in 20 patients using insulated needles. Each needle was primed with D5W. The needle was advanced towards the target nerve until corresponding motor responses were observed using a current of 0.5 mA or less. Once the needle position was optimally placed, 1 mL of D5W was injected followed by a predetermined dose of local anesthetic. The effects of the injectates (D5W and local anesthetic) on the motor response were observed at all needle insertion sites. In all cases, the motor response was at least maintained or augmented (96%) immediately after the injection of D5W. All motor responses diminished after the injection of local anesthetic (100%). All blocks were considered clinically successful.

IMPLICATIONS: The injection of a nonconducting solution (D5W) maintains or augments a motor response elicited by 0.5 mA or less by decreasing the conductive surface area and increasing the current density at the needle tip. Using an injection of D5W during single-shot peripheral nerve block may provide a uniform electrical field around the stimulating needle tip and a reproducible motor response.

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Supported, in part, by the Clinical Investigatorship Award from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, Alberta, Canada.

Accepted for publication November 23, 2004.

Address reprint requests to Ban C. H. Tsui, MSC, MD, FRCP(C), Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Med, 8–120 Clinical Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G3. Address e-mail to btsui@ualberta.ca.

During electrical stimulation, the ability to elicit a motor response with a low current (<0.5 mA) is lost after injection of even a small amount of normal saline or local anesthetic (Raj test) (1). In contrast, the injection of a nonconducting solution (dextrose 5% in water, D5W) has been demonstrated to maintain a motor response in a porcine model by decreasing the conductive surface area and increasing the current density at the needle tip (2). However, this phenomenon has not been demonstrated in a clinical setting. This case report describes the effect of the injection of a nonconducting solution (D5W) on a motor response elicited by electrical stimulation during peripheral nerve block.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Case Reports

After institutional ethics approval and informed consent, 29 peripheral needle insertion sites were performed in 20 patients (Table 1). A 22-gauge insulated needle (Stimuplex, B. Braun, Bethlehem, PA) was primed with D5W. The needle was inserted and advanced in a standard fashion with the patient under light sedation. At each insertion site, the stimulator was set at a current between 0.8 and 1 mA (0.1 ms; 1 Hz). As the needle advanced towards the target nerve, the current was gradually decreased until a motor response was obtained at a minimal current (≤0.5 mA). Subsequently, 1 mL of D5W was injected while firmly holding the needle in place. The motor response was visually graded as follows: no change, augmented, or diminished. To initiate the block, 10–20 mL of a local anesthetic mixture of lidocaine 1%–2% and 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in normal saline was then injected. Any change in the motor response upon the injection of local anesthetic was also noted. General anesthesia was induced after the onset of the block. A failed block was defined as the requirement for intraoperative or immediate postoperative (in the recovery room) IV opioid for pain control, as judged by the anesthesiologist.

Table 1

Table 1

In all cases, the motor responses were at least maintained or augmented (96%) immediately after the injection of D5W. All motor responses were abolished immediately after the injection of <1 mL of local anesthetic. There was no significant difference between the threshold currents at the different peripheral sites (Table 2). The injection of D5W and local anesthetic did not cause any pain in any of the patients studied. The onset of each block occurred within 10 min. All patients awoke comfortable and did not require intraoperative or postoperative opioids.

Table 2

Table 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

This is the first clinical case series to describe the effect of the injection of a nonconducting solution (D5W) on a motor response elicited by low current electrical stimulation during peripheral nerve block. The injection of D5W maintained or augmented the elicited motor response whereas a subsequent injection of local anesthetic diminished the same motor response. This phenomenon was demonstrated for interscalene, supraclavicular, lumbar plexus, femoral, and sciatic nerve blocks.

The clinical findings observed in this case series are comparable with those of a previous study in a porcine model (2). The cause of the motor responses being maintained or even augmented after the injection of D5W (a nonconducting solution) is likely a result of a decreased conductive area and increased current density surrounding the stimulating needle tip. In contrast, the injection of local anesthetic (a conducting solution) after D5W abolished the muscle twitch by increasing the conductive surface area and decreasing the current density at the stimulating needle tip. This reduction in current density by conducting solutions is well known in other medical fields (3,4).

A limitation of this report is that it was not conducted in a double-blind manner. Ideally, an objective electromyelogram measurement should have been used to quantify each motor response. However, we chose to visually assess each motor response (no change, diminished, or augmented) to depict a clinical setting. D5W was selected because its osmolality is similar to that of normal saline (5–7), it is painless on injection as compared with sterile water (5–7), and it is not known to cause any long-term sequelae in animals or humans when injected around neurological tissue (8–11).

Clearly, the motor response elicited by electrical stimulation is sensitive to changes at the needle-tissue interface (i.e., electrical conduction interference from blood or interstitial fluid). This may partly explain why a motor response was not observed in up to 70% of patients after nerve stimulation with up to 1 mA in the brachial plexus after obtaining paresthesia (12,13) or verification of correct needle placement by ultrasound (14). From a clinical perspective, the injection of nonconducting solutions may eliminate any possible electrical conduction interference from blood or interstitial fluid and minimize the incidence of false negative motor responses. In this study, all patients had positive motor responses without paresthesia. Anecdotally, we noticed that by priming the needle with D5W, the elicited motor responses were more stable and less affected by slight movement. Although this was not formally tested in this study, it supports the concept of using a nonconducting injectate to provide a uniform electrical field around the stimulating needle tip and a reproducible motor response. In addition, one may potentially use a nonconducting solution such as D5W instead of normal saline to dilate the perineural space during continuous peripheral block catheter placement to avoid the electrical conducting effect of normal saline and facilitate optimal catheter placement. Further studies in this area are warranted to justify these speculations.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Raj PP, de Andres J, Grossi P, et al. Aids to localization of peripheral nerves. In: Raj PP, ed. Clinical practice of regional anesthesia. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1991:251–84.
2. Tsui BC, Wagner A, Finucane B. Electrophysiologic effect of injectates on peripheral nerve stimulation. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2004;29:189–93.
3. Kartush JM, Niparko JK, Bledsoe SC, et al. Intraoperative facial nerve monitoring: a comparison of stimulating electrodes. Laryngoscope 1985;95:1536–40.
4. Schekutiev G, Schmid UD. Coaxial insulated bipolar electrode for monopolar and bipolar mapping of neural tissue: technical note with emphasis on the principles of intra-operative stimulation. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1996;138:470–4.
5. Cohn AI, Levesque PR. Saline versus water for epidural injection. Anesth Analg 1993;76:455–6.
6. Fortuna A, Fortuna AO. Saline versus water for epidural injection. Anesth Analg 1993;77:864–5.
7. Mayhew JF. Saline versus water for epidural injection. Anesth Analg 1993;77:646.
8. Hashimoto K, Sakura S, Bollen AW, et al. Comparative toxicity of glucose and lidocaine administered intrathecally in the rat. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1998;23:444–50.
9. Mphanza T. Inadvertent infusion of glucose saline into the extradural space. Br J Anaesth 1996;76:332.
10. Sakura S, Chan VW, Ciriales R, Drasner K. The addition of 7.5% glucose does not alter the neurotoxicity of 5% lidocaine administered intrathecally in the rat. Anesthesiology 1995;82:236–40.
11. Whiteley MH, Laurito CE. Neurologic symptoms after accidental administration of epidural glucose. Anesth Analg 1997;84:216–7.
12. Choyce A, Chan VW, Middleton WJ, et al. What is the relationship between paresthesia and nerve stimulation for axillary brachial plexus block? Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001;26:100–4.
13. Urmey WF, Stanton J. Inability to consistently elicit a motor response following sensory paresthesia during interscalene block administration. Anesthesiology 2002;96:552–4.
14. Perlas A, Chan VW, Simons M. Brachial plexus examination and localization using ultrasound and electrical stimulation: a volunteer study. Anesthesiology 2003;99:429–35.
© 2005 International Anesthesia Research Society