Is the phoenix sign phenomenon due to vasodilation? A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing motor function recovery after diagnostic common fibular nerve block with lidocaine and papaverine.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 100968565 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1471-2474 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14712474 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2000-
    • Subject Terms:
      Lidocaine*/administration & dosage ; Lidocaine*/pharmacology ; Lidocaine*/therapeutic use ; Nerve Block*/methods ; Papaverine*/administration & dosage ; Papaverine*/pharmacology ; Papaverine*/therapeutic use ; Vasodilator Agents*/administration & dosage ; Vasodilator Agents*/pharmacology ; Vasodilation*/drug effects ; Recovery of Function*; Humans ; Double-Blind Method ; Male ; Female ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Adult ; Peroneal Nerve/drug effects ; Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage ; Anesthetics, Local/pharmacology ; Aged ; Muscle, Skeletal/drug effects ; Muscle, Skeletal/blood supply ; Muscle Strength/drug effects ; Peroneal Neuropathies/etiology ; Peroneal Neuropathies/drug therapy ; Treatment Outcome ; Nerve Compression Syndromes/drug therapy ; Nerve Compression Syndromes/physiopathology
    • Abstract:
      Background: Focal entrapment of the common fibular (peroneal) nerve (CFN) is the most common nerve entrapment in the lower extremity. Accurate diagnosis can be difficult due to co-existent pathology such as low back pathology. A 1% lidocaine block of CFN is often used to confirm the local entrapment pathology and demonstrate possibility of pain relief. A surprising, unexpected and temporary strengthening of CFN supplied ankle and foot muscles is occasionally produced, termed the Phoenix sign. Aetiology of this phenomenon has been puzzling, but restoration of neural circulation and nutrition via improved local blood flow has been postulated to be responsible.
      Methods: This is a double-blinded, randomized, prospective controlled trial of 20 patients, comparing 2 vasodilating agents and their ability to produce the Phoenix effect. Ultrasound guided infiltration of 0.3 mL 1% lidocaine or papaverine HCl 10 mg/mL was executed adjacent to CFN. Motor strength pre- infiltration and 4 min post-infiltration were measured for anterior compartment muscles utilizing MRC manual motor testing reported on a 0-5 scale. The extensor hallucis longus (EHL) muscle proved to be the most significant.
      Results: Average motor strength of the EHL improved from 2.2 (+/-0.40) to 4.9 (+/-0.32).) in the lidocaine group. In the papaverine group, pre-infiltration EHL motor strength averaging 2.1 (+/-0.93) improved to 4.4 (+/- 1.01) post-infiltration. Papaverine and lidocaine produced similar statistically significant increases in muscle strength (p = < 0.05).
      Conclusion: There was no difference between small local infiltrations of lidocaine or papaverine in production of increased anterior compartment EHL motor strength. It is most likely that the Phoenix Effect is explained by temporary local improvements in the microcirculation of the CFN vasa nervorum.
      Trial Registration: NCT06637046 10/10/2024 Retrospectively registered.
      (© 2024. The Author(s).)
    • References:
      Pharmacology. 2010;86(5-6):273-80. (PMID: 20980780)
      J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Sep 2;97(17):1386-97. (PMID: 26333733)
      J Vis Exp. 2011 Apr 12;(50):. (PMID: 21505416)
      Front Neurol. 2023 Apr 17;14:1135379. (PMID: 37139063)
      Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2021 Jun 19;13(2):24937. (PMID: 34745471)
      Neurol Res. 2017 Apr;39(4):285-291. (PMID: 28290778)
      Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014 Jun 9;111(23-24):407-16. (PMID: 24980673)
      Biomolecules. 2022 Dec 12;12(12):. (PMID: 36551285)
      Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2020 Jun;34(3):101565. (PMID: 32747188)
      Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Sep 1;148(3):592-596. (PMID: 34432688)
      Med Clin North Am. 2019 Mar;103(2):371-382. (PMID: 30704688)
      BMJ Open. 2012 Feb 22;2(1):e000435. (PMID: 22357571)
      Biomed Res Int. 2020 Oct 13;2020:3093874. (PMID: 33102578)
      J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2017 Sep;78(5):419-430. (PMID: 28038479)
      Lancet. 1973 Aug 18;2(7825):359-62. (PMID: 4124532)
      Ann Plast Surg. 1984 Aug;13(2):112-20. (PMID: 6476732)
      World Neurosurg. 2018 Apr;112:e465-e472. (PMID: 29355794)
      Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020 Jun;162(6):1439-1444. (PMID: 32328792)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Common peroneal nerve; Drop foot; Peripheral nerve; Peripheral nerve block; Vascular perfusion
    • Molecular Sequence:
      ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06637046
    • Accession Number:
      98PI200987 (Lidocaine)
      DAA13NKG2Q (Papaverine)
      0 (Vasodilator Agents)
      0 (Anesthetics, Local)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20241024 Date Completed: 20241024 Latest Revision: 20241031
    • Publication Date:
      20241031
    • Accession Number:
      PMC11520154
    • Accession Number:
      10.1186/s12891-024-07972-3
    • Accession Number:
      39443927