Anaesthesia, 2001, 56, pages 272±296
Correspondence
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The recent papers referred to by Dr
Drummond [1, 3, 4], but unpublished
at the time our artricle was submitted,
support this view. Whilst we are
cognisant of the length of time from
submission to publication, we were
unable to review these articles. Dr
Drummond correctly takes us to task
for failing to acknowledge the source
of figure 4, for which we apologise.
However, it was modified from an
original article by Wadsworth [5] and
not by Stoelting [6] as cited by Dr
Drummond.
References
References
1 Warner MA, Warner DO, Matsumoto
JY, et al. Ulnar neuropathy in surgical
patients. Anesthesiology 1999; 90:
54±9.
1 Prielipp RC, Morrell RC, Walker FO,
Santos CS, Bennett J, Butterworth J.
Ulnar nerve pressure. Influence of arm
position and relationship to
somatosensory evoked potentials.
Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 345±54.
2 Cheng FW. Perioperative ulnar nerve
injury±A continuing medical and
liability problem. ASA Newsletter 1998;
62: 10±11.
2 Warner MA, Warner DO, Harper M,
Schroeder DR, Maxson PM. Lower
extremity neuropathies associated with
lithotomy positions. Anesthesiology
2000; 93: 938.
3 Prielipp RC, Morell RC, Walker FO,
et al. Ulnar nerve pressure. Influence of
arm position and relationship to
somatosensory evoked potentials.
Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 345±54.
4 Caplan RA. Will we ever understand
perioperative neuropathy?
3 Warner MA, Warner DO, Harper M,
Schroeder DR, Maxson PM. Lower
extremity neuropathies associated with
lithotomy positions. Anesthesiology
2000; 93: 938±42.
The time of onset of peri-operative
peripheral neuropathy has been
a
subject for much debate. In the article
quoted by Dr Drummond [3], in
relation to lower extremity peri-opera-
tive peripheral neuropathy, Warner
et al. stated that `prolonged duration
of time in lithotomy positions, espe-
cially for more than 2 hours, was
strongly associated with these neuro-
pathies'. Lower extremity neuropathies
did indeed present early, within 4 h of
completion of the anaesthetic and 14
out of 15 neuropathies resolved within
6 months. The same group of inves-
tigators prospectively studied ulnar
neuropathy [7] with interesting results.
They found that symptoms developed
2±7 days after surgery and in four
patients symptoms resolved within
6 weeks; however, three patients still
had residual symptoms 2 years later.
These authors also observe: `None of
the neuropathies were present within
the first 2 postoperative days'.
The experimental observations of
Prielipp et al. [1] also showed that
pressure on the ulnar nerve at the
elbow was greatest with the forearm
in pronation and least in supination.
Referring to this last study, Caplan
[4] in the same article quoted by
Dr Drummond, wrote: `Until we
have a better ability to predict and
monitor ulnar nerve injury, these
findings can serve as guides for clinical
decision making.' Our sentiments
entirely!
4 Caplan RA. Will we ever understand
perioperative neuropathy?
Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 335±6.
5 Kroll DA, Caplan RA, Posner K, Ward
RJ, Cheney FW. Nerve injury
associated with anesthesia.
Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 335±6.
5 Wadsworth TG. The cubital tunnel and
the external compression syndrome.
Anesthesia and Analgesia 1974; 53: 303±
8.
Anesthesiology 1990; 73: 202±7.
6 Stoelting RK. Postoperative ulnar
nerve palsy ± is it a preventable
complication? Anesthesia and Analgesia
1993; 76: 7±9.
6 Stoetling RK. Postoperative ulnar
nerve palsy ± is it a preventable
complication? Anesthesia and Analgesia
1993; 76: 7±9.
7 Warner MA, Warner DO, Matsumoto
JY, Harper M, Schroeder DR, Maxson
P. Ulnar neuropathy in surgical patients.
Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 54±9
A reply
Thank you for the opportunity to
reply to Dr Drummond's letter. We
agree that in the genesis of nerve
injuries, the mechanisms of injury are
putative and unknown. It was to this
end that our suggestions for avoiding
possible predisposing factors, as
described in our review article, were
directed. This would be the safest
course of action for an anaesthetist in
clinical practice to follow until further
research, such as that undertaken by
Prielipp et al. [1], could be undertaken
to elucidate a mechanism of neural
injury. We have not stated that all peri-
operative nerve injuries are avoidable,
or that they can be wholly prevented,
rather that an awareness of predisposing
factors may reduce the frequency with
which they occur. We have stated that
nerve injuries are `difficult to defend'
rather than `indefensible' and this is
borne out by the fact that ` ¼
payment was made in about half of
the claims (for peri-operative ulnar
neuropathy) where care was judged
appropriate' [2].
Peripheral nerve injuries
I read the recent review article on
peripheral nerve injuries (Sawyer et al.
Anaesthesia 2000; 55: 980±91) with
great interest. Most of the neurolo-
gical damage described in the article
resulted from poor surgical position-
ing, which caused either direct
pressure or traction on the nerve
trunk. I would like to report a case
where significant, but thankfully tem-
porary, damage was unwittingly
inflicted on a major peripheral nerve
by anaesthetic considerations alone.
A 52-year-old woman undergoing
free-flap reconstruction of an intra-
oral carcinoma was anaesthetised
supine and both arms adequately
padded with gel supports in the
crucifix position. Direct arterial pres-
sure was monitored via a 20-g cannula
in the left radial artery. Shortly after
R. J. Sawyer
M. N. Richmond
J. Jarratt
J. Hickey
q 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd
289