Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Jan-Feb;75(1):844574.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2024.844574. Epub 2024 Nov 17.

Comparative effectiveness of anterior and posterior approaches for interscalene brachial plexus block: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparative effectiveness of anterior and posterior approaches for interscalene brachial plexus block: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Luis Eduardo Ciconini et al. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2025 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Introduction: Interscalene Brachial Plexus Blocks (ISBPB) are highly effective forms of anesthesia for surgeries involving the upper arm, shoulder, and neck. Recently, there has been a growing interest in comparing the advantages and limitations of the anterior and posterior approaches.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether the anterior or posterior approach to ISBPB offers a clinical advantage regarding complete block rates and time to block completion. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the anterior and posterior techniques for ISBPB while excluding studies with overlapping populations, comparisons of blocks other than interscalene, and articles written in a non-English language.

Results: The search strategy identified 2229 articles, of which six Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. A total of 414 patients were included, with 210 patients in the anterior group and 204 in the posterior group. The Odds Ratio (OR) for a complete sensory block between the two techniques did not reach statistical significance (OR = 0.56 [0.20, 1.58], 95% CI, p = 0.27). Similarly, the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) for the time to complete the block also did not reach statistical significance (SMD: -0.77 [-2.12, 0.59], 95% CI, p = 0.27). Heterogeneity for complete block was not significant (I2 = 0%), while procedure time showed high heterogeneity (I2 = 97%).

Conclusion: Both techniques have shown effectiveness in providing surgical analgesia. The choice of technique should be determined by the provider's comfort and proficiency, as well as ensuring the highest level of safety for the patient.

Keywords: Anesthesia; Block; Brachial plexus anesthesia; Cervical plexus blockade; Nerve blockade; Regional anesthesia; brachial plexus.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram of study screening and selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Quality assessment and risk of bias.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Odds ratio of complete sensory blocks.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Standardized mean difference of procedure time.

Similar articles

References

    1. Bowens C, Sripada R. Regional Blockade of the Shoulder: Approaches and Outcomes. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:1–12. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jiangping W, Xiaolin Q, Han S, et al. Network Meta-Analysis of Perioperative Analgesic Effects of Different Interventions on Postoperative Pain After Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery Based on Randomized Controlled Trials. Front Med. 2022;9 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bishop JY, Sprague M, Gelber J, et al. Interscalene regional anesthesia for arthroscopic shoulder surgery: A safe and effective technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:567–570. - PubMed
    1. Bishop JY, Sprague M, Gelber J, et al. Interscalene Regional Anesthesia for Shoulder Surgery. J Bone Jt Surg. 2005;87:974–979. - PubMed
    1. Urban MK, Urquhart B. Evaluation of brachial plexus anesthesia for upper extremity surgery. Reg Anesth. 1994;19:175–182. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources