Block of the sciatic nerve at the midfemoral level is usually performed using nerve stimulation techniques. We investigated the efficacy of ultrasound, combined with nerve stimulation, to locate and block the sciatic nerve at the lateral midfemoral level compared to nerve stimulation alone. Sixty-one patients scheduled for foot and ankle surgery were enrolled in this prospective, randomized study. Thirty patients underwent a lateral block of the sciatic nerve at the midfemoral level guided by ultrasound (group US) and 31 patients received the block without ultrasound (group ES). Once an adequate motor response was obtained using nerve stimulation, 35 mL of ropivacaine 0.5% was administered. The main end-points of the study were: number of attempts to obtain an adequate motor response, success rate of nerve location at the first attempt, quality and duration of both sensory and motor blocks, and anesthetic distribution. The success of sciatic nerve location at the first attempt was significantly more frequent in the US group than in the ES group (76.6% versus 41.9%; P < 0.001). The quality of the sensory block and the tolerance to the pneumatic tourniquet were also significantly better in the US group (P < 0.01). We conclude that ultrasound combined with nerve stimulation improved the quality of the sensory block and the tolerance to the pneumatic tourniquet, reducing the number of attempts to perform sciatic nerve block at the midfemoral level.

Outpatient treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) seems as safe and effective as inpatient treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH). However, most of the randomized trials comparing a LMWH with UFH described clinical outcomes within 3-6 months. The long-term incidence of recurrent VTE after treatment of DVT with LMWH remains to be established. The primary objective of this retrospective study was to document the long-term incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with DVT treated with a LMWH, nadroparin in an outpatient basis. The patients were evaluated 46 months after inclusion in two cohorts comparing home treatment with nadroparin (n = 130) with in-hospital treatment with intravenous UFH (n = 149). More than 60% of the patients in the nadroparin group could be treated at home, either entirely or after a short stay in hospital. The age-adjusted thrombosis-free survival was not statistically significant between nadroparin and UFHtreated patients (P = 0.084). There was a nonsignificant trend favoring nadroparin as compared with UFH. The hazard ratio (HR) for recurrent VTE in the nadroparin group with respect to the UFH group was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.17-1.12). No significant differences were observed in overall mortality or major hemorrhage between the two treatment groups. Our study suggests that home treatment of DVT with LMWH is at least as effective and safe as in-hospital UFH after a long-term follow-up period. Am. J. Hematol. 67:10-14, 2001.

Outpatient treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) seems as safe and effective as inpatient treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH). However, most of the randomized trials comparing a LMWH with UFH described clinical outcomes within 3-6 months. The long-term incidence of recurrent VTE after treatment of DVT with LMWH remains to be established. The primary objective of this retrospective study was to document the long-term incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with DVT treated with a LMWH, nadroparin in an outpatient basis. The patients were evaluated 46 months after inclusion in two cohorts comparing home treatment with nadroparin (n = 130) with in-hospital treatment with intravenous UFH (n = 149). More than 60% of the patients in the nadroparin group could be treated at home, either entirely or after a short stay in hospital. The age-adjusted thrombosis-free survival was not statistically significant between nadroparin and UFH-treated patients (P = 0.084). There was a nonsignificant trend favoring nadroparin as compared with UFH. The hazard ratio (HR) for recurrent VTE in the nadroparin group with respect to the UFH group was 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.17-1.12). No significant differences were observed in overall mortality or major hemorrhage between the two treatment groups. Our study suggests that home treatment of DVT with LMWH is at least as effective and safe as in-hospital UFH after a long-term follow-up period.

No abstract