Search

Simple Summary: Periorbital surgeries are painful procedures that require effective pain management, and regional anaesthesia is an essential tool used to achieve it. To desensitise the area of the head involved, blockade of the branches of the trigeminal nerve (ophthalmic, maxillary, and mandibular nerves) is warranted. This technique is well described and employed in human medicine, but the literature on veterinary medicine (dogs) is scarce. This study aims to assess and compare two ultrasound-guided approaches for trigeminal nerve block. Thirteen dog heads were utilised, and following a preliminary anatomical assessment, procedures were conducted using temporal and coronoid approaches. The needle was advanced under ultrasonographic guidance from the dorsal aspect of the temporal area or ventral to the zygomatic arch, respectively. A computed tomography scan was performed with the needles in place and repeated after injection of a contrast medium/tissue dye mixture. Dissection of the heads was immediately performed thereafter. Needle position, contrast distribution, and nerve staining were evaluated and compared between the two techniques. Results indicate no significant difference between both techniques. Both methods demonstrate adequate distribution, with minimal intracranial spread of the injectate. Both techniques are promising, although further studies in live animals are required. The trigeminal nerve is responsible for innervating the periorbita. Ultrasound-guided trigeminal block is employed in humans for trigeminal neuralgia or periorbital surgery. There are no studies evaluating this block in dogs. This study aims to evaluate and compare two approaches (coronoid and temporal) of the trigeminal nerve block. We hypothesised superior staining with the coronoid approach. Thirteen dog heads were used. After a preliminary anatomical study, two ultrasound-guided injections per head (right and left, coronoid and temporal approach, randomly assigned), with an injectate volume of 0.15 mL cm−1 of cranial length, were performed (iodinated contrast and tissue dye mixture). The ultrasound probe was placed over the temporal region, visualising the pterygopalatine fossa. For the temporal approach, the needle was advanced from the medial aspect of the temporal region in a dorsoventral direction. For the coronoid approach, it was advanced ventral to the zygomatic arch in a lateromedial direction. CT scans and dissections were conducted to assess and compare the position of the needle, the spread of the injectate, and nerve staining. No significant differences were found. Both approaches demonstrated the effective interfascial distribution of the injectate, with some minimal intracranial spread. Although the coronoid approach did not yield superior staining as hypothesised, it presents a viable alternative to the temporal approach. Studies in live animals are warranted to evaluate clinical efficacy and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The trigeminal nerve is responsible for innervating the periorbita. Ultrasound-guided trigeminal block is employed in humans for trigeminal neuralgia or periorbital surgery. There are no studies evaluating this block in dogs. This study aims to evaluate and compare two approaches (coronoid and temporal) of the trigeminal nerve block. We hypothesised superior staining with the coronoid approach. Thirteen dog heads were used. After a preliminary anatomical study, two ultrasound-guided injections per head (right and left, coronoid and temporal approach, randomly assigned), with an injectate volume of 0.15 mL cm -1 of cranial length, were performed (iodinated contrast and tissue dye mixture). The ultrasound probe was placed over the temporal region, visualising the pterygopalatine fossa. For the temporal approach, the needle was advanced from the medial aspect of the temporal region in a dorsoventral direction. For the coronoid approach, it was advanced ventral to the zygomatic arch in a lateromedial direction. CT scans and dissections were conducted to assess and compare the position of the needle, the spread of the injectate, and nerve staining. No significant differences were found. Both approaches demonstrated the effective interfascial distribution of the injectate, with some minimal intracranial spread. Although the coronoid approach did not yield superior staining as hypothesised, it presents a viable alternative to the temporal approach. Studies in live animals are warranted to evaluate clinical efficacy and safety.