ArticleJSES international2026
Effective range in the proximal shoulder by ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block.
Article in JSES international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ultrasound-guided interscalene block (ISB) is a common anesthesia technique for shoulder surgery. However, its effective area remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the specific area in the proximal aspect of the shoulder affected by ultrasound-guided ISB. Methods: A total of 100 consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair under ultrasound-guided ISB in a single institution were included in this study. The effective area of the block was investigated using a pinprick test after surgery along 7 uniquely preset lines: line A extended from the anterolateral corner of the acromion proximally to the proximal edge of the clavicle, line B extended from the coracoid proximally and parallel to line A, line C extended from the coracoid inferiorly and vertically to line B, line D was the bisector of lines B and C, line E extended from the posterolateral corner of the acromion proximally along the scapular spine, line F extended from the posterolateral corner of the acromion inferiorly and vertically to line E, and line G was the bisector of lines E and F. The ratio of the effective range to the distance between the anterolateral corner of the acromion and the proximal edge of the clavicle (A-P distance) was calculated to standardize the physical differences among patients. Results: Of the 100 patients, 3 demonstrated ineffective supraclavicular nerve block and 59 required local anesthesia on the portal sites in addition to ISB. The average measurements and ratios of the remaining 38 patients were 129.2 ± 36.2 mm and 0.69 ± 0.18 in line A, 106.8 ± 25.5 mm and 0.57 ± 0.13 in line B, 62.4 ± 15.1 mm and 0.34 ± 0.09 in line C, 80.8 ± 22.3 mm and 0.44 ± 0.12 in line D, 65.8 ± 19.3 mm and 0.36 ± 0.11 in line E, 58.2 ± 14.7 mm and 0.31 ± 0.08 in line F, and 58.7 ± 16.1 mm and 0.32 ± 0.09 in line G, respectively. The variability of the ratio was significantly higher in lines A, B, and D than in lines C, E, F, and G. Conclusion: This study demonstrated the effective area in the proximal aspect of the shoulder induced by ultrasound-guided ISB. The effective range in the supraclavicular nerve area is highly variable. These findings can help surgeons determine the range of skin incisions and portal sites for arthroscopic shoulder surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.