Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 121737

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : November | Volume : 17 | Issue : 11 | Page : UC01 - UC06 Full Version

Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Unilateral Spinal Anaesthesia and Ultrasound-guided Sciatic Femoral Nerve Block in below Knee Surgery: A Randomised Clinical Study

Published: November 1, 2023 | DOI:
Dhara M Shah, Bipin K Shah, Shruti Desai, Sarala C Baria

1. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Dr. M.K. Shah Medical College and Reseach College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. 2. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, GCS Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, GCS Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Dr. M.K. Shah Medical College and Reseach College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Dhara M Shah,
701, Riverheight, Beside Navgujarat College, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380014, Gujarat, India.


\Introduction: With modern advances, Ultrasonography (USG)-guided regional block techniques have improved nerve blockade with lesser drug usage and maximum safety for patient care. The widely appreciated outpatient surgical care has compelled us to apply the fastest and safest anaesthesia technique. For lower limb surgeries, USG-guided Sciatic Femoral Nerve Block (SFNB) is an emerging alternative to Spinal Anaesthesia (SA).

Aim: To compare the safety and efficacy of both techniques in terms of haemodynamic stability, quality of block, and postoperative analgesia.

Materials and Methods: A randomised double-blind study conducted at GCS Medical College, Hospital, and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, on 80 patients aged 18 to 70 years of either sex, with American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) Grade 1 to 3, undergoing below-knee surgeries was divided into two groups. Group A received USA with 1.5 mL hyperbaric inj. ropivacaine 0.75%, and Group B received USG-guided SFB with inj. ropivacaine 0.5% 30 mL (15 mL for sciatic nerve and 15 mL for femoral nerve block). Preparation Time (PT), Surgical Anaesthesia Time (SAT), haemodynamic changes, quality of block, Longevity of Anaesthesia (LoA), time of first rescue analgesia, time of spontaneous urination, readiness to discharge, and patient satisfaction were recorded. The statistical analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago II, USA). The p-value was derived by unpaired t-test and Chi-square test.

Results: PT and SAT were higher in Group B (12.10±2.02 mins and 15.74±1.58 mins) than in Group A (6.15±1.12 mins and 8.23±1.45 mins). LoA time and time to first rescue analgesic were higher in Group B (284.10±54.44 mins and 265.71±33.69 mins) than in Group A (138.75±23.30 mins and 132.40±17.41 mins). Time to first spontaneous urination and readiness to discharge were shorter in Group B (136.42±18.40 mins and 158.39±10.78 mins) than in Group A (162.20±26.54 mins and 181.53±18.18 mins). Haemodynamic stability was excellent in both groups with no significant fluctuation. Motor blockade of Bromage 3 grade was achieved in 40 and 38 patients in Group A and B, respectively. The development of VAS score >3 was faster in Group A than in Group B (35 versus 2) at the end of three hours. No adverse events were observed in any patient.

Conclusion: USG-guided SFB offers a safe and efficient alternative to Unilateral SA (USA) with satisfactory blockage, stable haemodynamics, and better postoperative analgesia for below-knee surgeries.


Analgesia, Haemodynamics, Pain, Peripheral nerve block, Ropivacaine

The increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgical techniques, fast-tracking of elective cases, and daycare surgeries have compelled an anaesthesiologist to develop better and newer modes of anaesthesia that prioritise safety, efficacy of techniques, and early resumption of daily activities after both major and minor procedures. With the development of innovative techniques such as Peripheral Nerve Stimulator (PNBs) and ultrasound, the scope of anaesthesia has shifted from general and neuraxial anaesthesia to PNBs. These techniques require less preoperative optimisation and reduce the incidence of cardiorespiratory complications (1). Below-knee surgeries have increasingly become daycare procedures due to the effectiveness of anaesthesia techniques, allowing rapid and safe discharge. Regional anaesthesia serves as an alternative to general anaesthesia for such surgeries. Both PNBs and SA provide adequate anaesthesia, superior postoperative analgesia, and patient satisfaction compared to general anaesthesia. Moreover, they are minimally invasive, involve no airway manipulation, and require fewer resources (2),(3).

USA is particularly used for unilateral lower limb surgeries to provide optimal surgical conditions with fewer haemodynamic disturbances compared to complete bilateral SA (4). SFB can also be used for unilateral lower limb surgeries, but its complexity and larger drug volume usage have made it less popular (5). However, with the assistance of USG, SFB has become more accurate, safe, less time-consuming, and easier to perform (5),(6),(7). PNBs have been successfully utilised in patients with critical co-morbidities who cannot tolerate even slight haemodynamic alterations, offering a safe alternative to avoid the side-effects associated with SA (8).

The present study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of USA and USG-guided SFB in terms of haemodynamic stability, quality of block, and postoperative analgesia for below-knee surgical cases.

Material and Methods

This randomised clinical double-blinded interventional parallel-arm study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) (GCSMC/EC/Research project/Approved/2021/302) and conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki from May 2022 to December 2022 at the Department of Anaesthesiology, GCS Medical College, Hospital, and Research Center, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. The study has been registered with Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) in April 2022 (CTRI/2022/04/041597).

Inclusion criteria: After obtaining written informed consent from all participants, a total of 80 patients with ASA grade 1 to 3, between the ages of 18 to 70 years, of either sex, who were scheduled for elective below-knee surgeries, were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with a bleeding disorders, allergies to Local Anaesthetic (LA) agents, acute infections, neurological diseases, morbid obesity, a history of spine surgery, seizures, psychiatric diseases, and cardiac or respiratory diseases were excluded from the study.

Sample size: The sample size was calculated using the “Sealed Envelope Ltd., Power calculator for binary outcome non inferiority trial” software. Based on the observed success rate of 99% for USA and 95% for USG-guided SFB block in our institute practice, a non inferiority limit of 14, a power of 80%, and a significance level (alpha) of 5%, the sample size for each group was calculated as 36, resulting in a total of 72 participants. Considering a 10% dropout rate, 80 patients were selected. (Table/Fig 1) depicts the CONSORT flow diagram.

Below-knee surgeries include a wide range of procedures such as fixations of bone fractures involving the tibia, fibula, and foot bones, surgeries on the ankle joint and tarsal-metatarsal joints, as well as debridement and tendon repair.

The enrolled 80 patients were randomly divided into two groups:

Group A: n=40, patients who received USA with hyperbaric inj. ropivacaine 0.75% 1.5 ml (9). After proper positioning, i.e., the patient in the knee-chest lateral position with the operative site kept dependent, under sterile precautions, a 25 G Quincke needle was introduced into the L2-L3 or L3-L4 space. With the CSF flow, the drug was given slowly with the hub directing downwards. Then, the needle was removed, and the patient was kept in a lateral position with extended legs for 15 minutes.

Group B: n=40, patients who received USG-guided SFB with inj. ropivacaine 0.5% 30 mL (15 mL for sciatic nerve block and 15 mL for femoral nerve block) (10). For the femoral nerve block, the patient was kept in a supine position with the leg extended. Under 2sterile precautions and local anaesthesia at the needle insertion site, the femoral nerve block was performed by introducing a 23 G Quincke needle near the inguinal region using USG guidance with a linear probe. For the sciatic nerve block, the patient was positioned in a lateral decubitus position (operative side-up) with the normal leg kept straight and the hip joint of the diseased leg flexed at 40°. After identifying the sciatic nerve between the ischial tuberosity and greater trochanter of the femur, local anaesthesia was given at the needle site under sterile precautions. Using USG guidance with a curvilinear probe, a 23 G Quincke needle was introduced, and the drug was delivered in the previously mentioned dosage. The patient was immediately placed in a supine position after the block.

Computer-generated random numbers were used for group assignments, which were placed in sequentially numbered opaque envelopes. The envelope was opened just before the procedure by the anesthesiologist performing the procedure. The observer (another anesthesiologist) and patients were blinded to the group and procedure performed.

A preoperative evaluation was conducted one day prior to surgery. After obtaining written informed consent, the patient was taken to the operating room, and an intravenous line and standard monitors such as electrocardiogram, non invasive blood pressure, and pulse oximetry were attached. Fluid therapy was initiated, and premedication with inj. glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg and inj. midazolam 0.04 mg/kg was administered. The anaesthetic technique was performed with all sterile precautions and in the dosage mentioned by two equally experienced anaesthesiologists. The PT was recorded as the time from the preparation of the position for the block to the delivery of the LA agent.

Patients were continuously monitored for heart rate, blood pressure, and SpO2. These parameters were recorded every five minutes for the initial 15 minutes, then every 15 minutes for two hours, and subsequently at two-hour intervals for 10 hours. Satisfactory blockage was defined based on fixed criteria. For Group A (USA), complete sensory and motor blockade upto the Thoracic 12 dermatome was desired. For Group B (USG-guided SFB), complete sensory and motor blockade in the distribution of the sciatic and femoral nerves, with immobility of the knee and ankle joint, was desired.

Sensory block was assessed using a pinprick at the blockage site, while motor blockage was assessed using a modified Bromage scale (0 indicating free movement and 3 indicating complete block). Apart from premedication and sedation with inj. midazolam, any addition of an analgesic agent or the need for general anaesthesia, failure to complete surgery prior to regression of blockage, or patient discomfort were considered to be failures of the anaesthesia method.

SAT was assessed as the time from the introduction of the LA agent to the successful completion of the desired block, as mentioned above. Surgical Duration (SD) was noted as the time from surgical incision to complete dressing of the wound. LoA was recorded as the time from LA injection to the complete regression of motor and sensory effects. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) every hour for upto eight hours postoperatively. The first rescue analgesia, inj. diclofenac, was introduced when the VAS score (ranging from 0 for no pain to 10 for worst pain) rose above three. After delivering the rescue analgesic, the VAS score was not considered for the study aim and was not recorded in the datasheet. The time to the first spontaneous urination was also noted, measured from the introduction of the block to spontaneous urination.

Any complications such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness, confusion, chest pain, or paraesthesia at the blockage site were noted. Data on patient satisfaction, including comfort during the anaesthesia technique, operative experience, perioperative pain, any other complaints, and preference for the same technique, were collected using an objective-based questionnaire. Readiness for discharge was determined using the modified Postanaesthetic Discharge Scoring (PADS) system, which includes vital signs, activity and mental status, pain, nausea and/or vomiting, surgical bleeding, and oral intake and output, with a total score of 10. A score of ≥9 was considered ready for discharge. The time for readiness to discharge is defined as the end of surgery to a PADS score of ≥9 (11).

Statistical Analysis

Data were recorded in Microsoft Excel software. The statistical analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Group comparisons were made using Unpaired t-tests or Chi-square tests for normally or non normally distributed continuous variables, respectively. Continuous data were presented as mean and standard deviation, while categorical variables were described as frequencies and compared using Chi-square tests. All statistical tests were performed at a significance level of a p-value <0.05.


A total of 80 patients scheduled to undergo planned below-knee surgery were randomly allocated to two groups: Group A and Group B, with 40 patients in each group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of demographic and ASA physical status parameters (Table/Fig 2).

Two patients from Group B required additional sedation with inj. fentanyl during surgical duration and were excluded from the analysis. All assessed data were calculated as mean and standard deviation (Table/Fig 3). The mean time for peripheral nerve block onset and SAT were shorter in Group A compared to Group B and were found to be significant.

The mean time to achieve complete motor blockage was faster in Group A (8 minutes versus 15 minutes), while the time for complete regression of motor blockage was the same in both groups (138 minutes versus 145 minutes) (Table/Fig 3). All patients in both Group A and Group B achieved a grade 3 motor block. Two patients in Group B experienced discomfort at the hip joint during surgery despite having complete sensory and motor blockage. However, low-dose fentanyl resolved their complaints.

The duration of analgesia was longer in Group B compared to Group A, and the differences were significant. VAS scores were assessed in patients every hour until rescue analgesics were administered (Table/Fig 4). The mean VAS score at 2, 3, and 4 hours postoperatively was higher in Group A compared to Group B and was found to be significant (Table/Fig 5). The development of a VAS score >3 occurred faster in Group A compared to Group B (35 patients versus 2 patients) by the end of the third hour. All patients in Group A required a rescue dose of analgesic by the fourth hour, whereas in Group B, all patients received rescue analgesics by the seventh hour. The time to first spontaneous urination was significantly shorter in Group B compared to Group A. The time to readiness for discharge was longer in Group A compared to Group B.

Haemodynamic variables, including pulse and non invasive blood pressure, were observed throughout the perioperative phase at regular intervals, and variability was found to be <20% from baseline. All patients remained stable during the course (Table/Fig 6),(Table/Fig 7). Oxygen saturation remained normal and unchanged throughout the perioperative period in both groups (Table/Fig 7). Three patients in Group A developed bilateral nerve blocks. No patients experienced any complications. Based on the study of lower limb surgery, all patients were encouraged and observed for assistive ambulation during discharge from the postoperative recovery area, but surgical restrictions prevented us from including this data. Not all patients were discharged on the same day, depending on the surgical demand for wound site observation. These patients were assessed for 10 hours in the hospital, while those who were discharged were assessed via telephonic video calls every two hours for upto 10 hours.

Patient satisfaction was comparable with both methods. All patients described their operative experience as good, with no discomfort, good pain relief, and no recorded complications. All patients preferred the same anaesthesia method in the future. Patients in Group B returned to oral intake earlier than those in Group A.


Unilateral Spinal Anaesthesia (USA) is a well-known and widely established anaesthesia technique for unilateral lower limb surgeries (12). Sciatic Femoral Nerve Block (SFB) on the operative site is a known but less popular method for the conduction of lower limb surgeries. Initially, SFB had limitations such as high failure rates, the use of large drug volumes, more skin pricks for patients, and time consumption. However, with the guidance of USG, these limitations have been greatly addressed [5,6]. The addition of safer local anaesthetic agents for the blockage has made this technique more widely accepted [5,8]. Previous studies have been conducted to establish SFB as a safe and better alternative to USA in day care surgeries, using different methods of block administration or different local anaesthetics [13-16]. The present study was conducted using USG guidance and ropivacaine.

Complete sensory and motor blockage were achieved in 100% of patients in both groups. A study conducted by Palkhiwala and Bhatt PT, on USG-guided sciatic femoral block showed a success rate of only 92% (17). The time to develop sensory blockage with USFB was 10.78±3.69 minutes, and motor blockage was achieved in 15.74±1.58 minutes, which was consistent with a study by Wani SA et al., where the times were 8.04±6.77 and 14.41±3.11 minutes, respectively (18).

Both methods demonstrated great haemodynamic stability by limiting low spinal blockage in the case of USG and only blocking peripheral nerves in SFB. Heart rate and SBP remained unchanged and were not significant. Oxygen saturation in both groups of patients remained normal and unchanged. These findings align with a study conducted by Saber AM et al., in 2019 (19). A study by Pattajoshi B et al., showed more haemodynamic fluctuations with SA compared to USFB, which may be due to bilateral lower limb blockage and the use of bupivacaine in SA (13).

The present study revealed that USG-guided SFB had a longer onset time and SAT compared to USG. However, the time consumed for fixing the unilateral block by keeping the patient in lateral decubitus position for 15 minutes in the later technique led to an equal delay in surgical incision for both methods. The reduced time required for USG-guided SFB is attributed to better knowledge and familiarity with the USG machine.

The duration of action (LoA) in the present study was observed to be longer in the SFB group compared to the USA group. The early return of motor blockage compared to sensory blockage in the SFB group allowed for early ambulation, providing postoperative analgesia and patient comfort. No residual weakness was observed with the SFB block, proving its safety in day care surgery.

In terms of the need for first-rescue analgesia, there was a significant difference between both groups (284.10 minutes versus 138.75 minutes). A study by Saleh AA et al., found similar results of 347.2 minutes versus 182.63 minutes with bupivacaine for USFB versus USA, respectively (14). Complete recovery from a sympathetic block in the SA group leads to an early need for rescue analgesics. It was observed that the development of VAS score from 0 to 3 was relatively slow with SFB, while it was rapid with USA. This finding was due to the slow absorption of drugs from the perineural sheath in nerve blocks compared to neuraxial blocks. A study by Khanna S et al., showed good postoperative analgesia with USFB and a low requirement for rescue analgesics for upto 48 hours (15).

In a study conducted by Karaduman Y et al., in Turkey, a total of 60 patients aged 18-65 years were randomly divided into two groups, with 30 receiving SA and 30 receiving SFNB. The duration of the intervention, time to onset of sensory and motor blockage, time to start of surgery, motor block reversal time, and time to first rescue analgesic were longer in the SFNB group. Fewer patients in the SFNB group required rescue analgesia in the first 24 hours compared to the SA group (20).

Urinary retention after spinal blockage is a cause for prolonged hospital stay. With SFB, urinary retention is rare, so the time to first spontaneous urination is short (136.4 minutes versus 162.2 minutes), which was in agreement with a study by Davarci I et al., in 2013. It was observed that ambulation is faster than voiding of urine in spinal anaesthesia, making it the last factor to return, fulfilling the criteria for readiness to discharge (16).

No side-effects such as nausea, vomiting, hypotension, headache, or any neurological or cardiovascular complications were found in patients receiving USFB or USA, in contrast to a study by Pattajoshi B et al., where 64.9% of patients in the SA group experienced some complications such as nausea, vomiting (51.4%), and headache (16.2%), while no complications were observed in the USFB group (13).

Adequate pain control is crucial for facilitating recovery by enabling early ambulation, faster return of bowel and bladder motility, increasing patient satisfaction, and reducing the side-effects caused by systemic opioids or NSAIDs. In addition to providing analgesia, stable vitals, complete awareness, freedom from nausea/vomiting, and the ability to resume oral intake were found to be superior in SFB compared to USA. Therefore, USG-guided SFB has advantages over USA in terms of postoperative analgesia, patient satisfaction, and readiness for discharge.

A meta-analysis conducted by Zhang L et al., indicates that SFB can lead to faster recovery in outpatient surgeries, and both techniques have comparable high levels of patient satisfaction (21).

Recently, the combination of nerve block using both Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) and USG methods has been considered a better practice. This approach has been shown to result in successful blocks with minimal incidence of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. In this study, the concentration and dosage of the drug were optimised, and no adverse events were noted. Additionally, good familiarity with the USG machine led to a high success rate for the nerve block. Two patients experienced discomfort at the hip joint with intraoperative limb movement, which led us to consider the sparing effect of the obturator and lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh with SFB.


A limitation of this study was the exclusion of obese patients and those with ASA grade >3, which may have limited the assessment of the efficacy and safety of the study. Further research is needed to expand this study to include patients with compromised cardiorespiratory conditions, emergency cases, and all lower limb surgeries in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SFB with PNS and USG methods. Additionally, comparing ropivacaine and other local anesthetic agents may provide better outcomes in day care surgeries.


With the increasing use of USG machines, the quality of peripheral nerve blockade has improved, and the time required for the procedure has significantly reduced, providing greater safety and comfort to patients. USG-guided SFB blocks have successfully achieved complete sensory and motor blockade in all patients, resulting in a good surgical plane. Haemodynamic stability has also been observed to be excellent with USFB. Postoperative pain scores were higher in the USA group compared to the USFB group. SFB has proven to be an ideal technique for fast-track surgery, as it leads to a shorter time to first urination and meets the criteria for PADS (post-anaesthetic discharge scoring system). Considering these findings, USG-guided SFB is a better alternative to USA for below-knee surgeries.


Malik S, Krishna D, Malik S. Combined psoas compartment and sciatic nerve block forlower limb surgery: An alternative anaesthetic option in high-risk geriatric patients. Karnataka Anaesth J. 2015;1:85-88. [crossref]
Casati A, Cappelleri G, Aldegheri G, Marchetti C, Messina M, De Ponti A. Total intravenous anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia or combined sciatic-femoral nerve block for outpatient knee arthroscopy. Minerva Anestesiol. 2004;70:493-502.
Montes FR, Zarate E, Grueso R, Giraldo JC, Venegas MP, Gomez A, et al. Comparison of spinal anaesthesia with combined sciatic-femoral nerve block for outpatient knee arthroscopy. J Clin Anaesth. 2008;20:415-20. [crossref][PubMed]
Ahmed H, Sagheer A, Aslam S. Comparison of hemodynamic effects of unilateral versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia in inquinal herniorrhaphy. J Univ Med Dent Coll. 2015;6(4):01-07.
Bansal L, Attri JP, Verma P. Lower limb surgeries under combined femoral and sciatic nerve block. Anaesth Essays Res. 2016;10:432-36. [crossref][PubMed]
Eltohamy SA. Ultrasound guided two-in-one technique for sciatic and femoral nerve block in below knee surgery: Comparison between two entry points. Egypt J Anaesth. 2012;28:261-67. [crossref]
Oberndorfer U, Marhofer P, Bösenberg A, Willschke H, Felfernig M, Weintraud M, et al. Ultrasonographic guidance for sciatic and femoral nerve blocks in children. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98:797-801. [crossref][PubMed]
Tantry TP, Kadam D, Shetty P, Bhandary S. Combined femoral and sciatic nerve blocks for lower limb anaesthesia in anticoagulated patients with severe cardiac valvular lesions. Indian J Anaesth. 2010;54:235-38. [crossref][PubMed]
Fettes PD, Hocking G, Peterson MK, Luck JF, Winldsmith JA. Comparison of plain and hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine for spinal anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94(1):107-11. [crossref][PubMed]
Cesati A, Fanelli G, Borghi B, Torri G. Ropivacaine or 2% mepivacaine for lower limb peripheral nerve blocks: Study group on orthopedic anaesthesia of italian society of anaesthesia, analgesia and intensive care. Anaesthesiology. 1999;90(4):1047-52. [crossref][PubMed]
Palumbo P, Tellan G, Perrotti B, Pacile MA, Vietri F, Illuminati G. Modified PADSS (Post Anaesthesic Discharge Scoring System) for monitoring outpatients discharge. Ann Ittal Chir. 2013;84(6):661-65.
Buttner B, Mqnsur A, Bauer M, Hinz J, Bergmann I. Unilateral spinal anaesthesia: Literature review and recommendation. Anaesthetist. 2016;65(11):847-65. [crossref][PubMed]
Pattajoshi B, Panigrahi S, Mohanty RK, Panigrahi SK. A prospective comparative study between ultrasound-guided combined sciatic-femoral nerve block versus spinal anaesthesia for the patients undergoing elective below-knee surgeries. Cureus. 2022;14(6):e26137. [crossref][PubMed]
Saleh AA, Mohammed AA, Mohamed HA, Essam Shafiq MA, Mohamed AM. Comparison between ultrasound- guided sciatic-femoral nerve block and unilateral spinal anaesthesia for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty; A prospective randomised controlled trial. J Popl Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2023;30(4):552-59.
Khanna S, Gogoi B, Jaishree SV, Prasad GVK. Peripheral nerve block (FLOS block) for intraoperative anaesthesia in total knee arthroplasty: An observational study. India J Heal Sci Biomed Res. 2021;14:72-79. [crossref]
Davarci I, Tuzcu K, Karcioglu M, Hakimoglu S, Özden R, Yengil E, et al. Comparison between ultrasound guided sciatic-femoral nerve block and unilateral spinal anaesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy. J Int Med Res. 2013;41(5):1639-47. [crossref][PubMed]
Palkhiwala BB, Bhatt PT. Study of combined femoral and sciatic nerve blocks for lower limb surgerical procedures. Gujarat Med J. 2015;70:36-40.
Wani SA, Nahida Q, Wani Sa, Kakroo S, Farooq S. Combined femoral and sciatic nerve blocks for lower limb surgeries. Indian J Clin Aneasth. 2021;8(1):74-78. [crossref]
Saber AM, Seema A, Rabab MM. Comparative study between unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus ultrasound combined femoro-sciatic nerve block for lower limb surgery. Med J Cairo University. 2019;87:3059-68.[crossref]
Karaduman Y, Banu C, Burak Y, Geyik FD, Saracoglu KT. Comparison of spinal anaesthesia and ultrasound guided combined sciatic-femoral block on perioperative anaesthesia and postoperative analgesic effect in lower limb surgery: A randomised controlled clinical trial. South Clin Ist Euras. 2020;31(4):376-81. [crossref]
Zhang L, Tong Y, Li M, Niu X, Zhao X, Lin F, et al. Sciatic femoral nerve block versus unilateral spinal anaesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy: A meta-analysis. Minerva Anestesiologica. 2015;81(12):1359-68.

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/64681.18653

Date of Submission: Apr 13, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Jul 13, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Aug 23, 2023
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2023

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

• Plagiarism X-checker: Apr 15, 2023
• Manual Googling: Jul 27, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Aug 21, 2023 (7%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin


JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)