Archives of Plastic Surgery

  • 제46권6호
  • /
  • Pages.594-598
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2234-6163(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-6171(eISSN)
대한성형외과학회 (Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Brachial plexus impingement secondary to implantable cardioverter defibrillator: A case report

  • Jumper, Natalie (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust) ;
  • Radotra, Ishan (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust) ;
  • Witt, Paulina (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust) ;
  • Campbell, Niall G (Department of Cardiology, University Hospital South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust) ;
  • Mishra, Anuj (Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust)
  • 투고 : 2018.09.10
  • 심사 : 2019.03.06
  • 발행 : 2019.11.15
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Overall complication rates of 9.1% have been reported following implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement. Brachial plexus injury is infrequently reported in the literature. We describe a 26-year-old female experiencing left arm nerve pain, a positive Tinel's sign, numbness in the median nerve distribution of the hand and biceps muscle weakness following revision ICD via subclavian vein approach. Nerve conduction studies identified severe partial left brachial plexopathy, which remained incompletely resolved with conservative management. Surgical exploration revealed lateral cord impingement by the ICD generator and a loop of the ICD lead, along with fibrosis, necessitating surgical neurolysis and ICD generator repositioning. As increasing numbers of patients undergo cardiac device implantation, it is incumbent on practitioners to be aware of potential increases in the prevalence of this complication.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ezzat VA, Lee V, Ahsan S, et al. A systematic review of ICD complications in randomised controlled trials versus registries: is our 'real-world' data an underestimation? Open Heart 2015;2:e000198. https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2014-000198
  2. Kim SY, Park JS, Bang JH, et al. Brachial plexus injury caused by indwelling axillary venous pacing leads. Korean Circ J 2015;45:428-31. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2015.45.5.428
  3. Porzionato A, Montisci M, Manani G. Brachial plexus injury following subclavian vein catheterization: a case report. J Clin Anesth 2003;15:582-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2003.02.009
  4. Rosso R, Glick A, Glikson M, et al. Outcome after implantation of cardioverter defibrillator [corrected] in patients with Brugada syndrome: a multicenter Israeli study (ISRABRU). Isr Med Assoc J 2008;10:435-9.
  5. Xu J, Card P, Watts E, et al. Combined vascular and neurologic injury after cephalic vein cutdown approach for ICD implantation. Case Rep Intern Med 2017;4:75-7. https://doi.org/10.5430/crim.v4n1p75
  6. Ferrante MA. Brachial plexopathies: classification, causes, and consequences. Muscle Nerve 2004;30:547-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.20131
  7. Orci LA, Meier RP, Morel P, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous subclavian vein puncture versus surgical venous cutdown for the insertion of a totally implantable venous access device. Br J Surg 2014;101:8-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9276
  8. Fiorista F, Lazari M, Marzegalli M, et al. Use of the subclavian vein for permanent cardiac stimulation. Arch Inst Cardiol Mex 1986;56:309-13.
  9. Love CJ. Complications of implantation and explantation. Card Electrophysiol Rev 1999;3:36-8. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009923313957
  10. Karakaya D, Baris S, Guldogus F, et al. Brachial plexus injury during subclavian vein catheterization for hemodialysis. J Clin Anesth 2000;12:220-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8180(00)00144-6
  11. Kim KH, Park KM, Nam GB, et al. Comparison of the axillary venous approach and subclavian venous approach for efficacy of permanent pacemaker implantation: 8-year follow-up results. Circ J 2014;78:865-71. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-13-0884
  12. Higgins SL. Implantation techniques and controversies. Card Electrophysiol Rev 2001;5:58-61. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009941127652
  13. Moradzadeh A, Brenner MJ, Whitlock EL, et al. Bipolar electrocautery: a rodent model of Sunderland third-degree nerve injury. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2010;12:40-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.2009.104
  14. Stone C, Aquilina TC, Mangar D, et al. Left infraclavicular brachial plexus block during pacemaker placement through the left subclavian vein. Anesth Analg 1994;78:602. https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-199403000-00034
  15. Raatikainen MJ, Arnar DO, Zeppenfeld K, et al. Statistics on the use of cardiac electronic devices and electrophysiological procedures in the European Society of Cardiology countries: 2014 report from the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace 2015;17 Suppl 1:i1-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu300