Search

Cauda equina syndrome is a rare condition (but likely underestimated in incidence) that occurs with lesions to the nerve roots distal to the conus medullaris. Lower extremity sensorimotor loss, bowel/bladder dysfunction, and, variably, radicular back pain are the most common presentations. Associated etiologies for non-compressive cauda equina syndrome following spinal anesthesia include local anesthetic neurotoxicity, neural inflammation, spinal stenosis, and surgical positioning, but most cases are idiopathic. Spinal stenosis and certain surgical positioning are associated with higher incidence of CSE. Clinical presentation and physical examination may be nonspecific; therefore, timely evaluation and emergent neurologic consultation are paramount. Rapid and readily available CT imaging may rule out a reversible cause, such as a decompressible mass lesion. Treatment options are limited.

BackgroundEvidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis: randomized controlled and observational studies investigating the impact of PNB utilization on major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, neurologic, infectious, and bleeding complications.Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were queried from 1946 to August 4, 2020.The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality and for the development of recommendations.ResultsAnalysis of 122 studies revealed that PNB use (compared with no use) was associated with lower ORs for (OR with 95% CIs) for numerous complications (total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), respectively): cognitive dysfunction (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53/OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80), respiratory failure (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74/OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75), cardiac complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93/OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), surgical site infections (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64/OR 0.86 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), thromboembolism (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96/OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and blood transfusion (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86/OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92).ConclusionsBased on the current body of evidence, the consensus group recommends PNB use in THA/TKA for improved outcomes.Recommendation: PNB use is recommended for patients undergoing THA and TKA except when contraindications preclude their use. Furthermore, the alignment of provider skills and practice location resources needs to be ensured. Evidence level: moderate; recommendation: strong.

In 2017, the third American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) practice advisory on local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST)[1][1] revised[2][2] its 2012 LAST checklist[3][3] to enhance the user experience. By comparing the readability (content and presentation) and

In this narrative review article, the authors discuss the anatomy, nomenclature, history, approaches (posterior vs. lateral vs. subcostal), techniques, pharmacology, indications, and complications of transversus abdominis plane blocks, as well as possible alternative truncal blocks.Despite the scarcity of evidence and contradictory findings, certain clinical suggestions can nonetheless be made. Overall transversus abdominis plane blocks appear most beneficial in the setting of open appendectomy (posterior or lateral approach). Lateral transversus abdominis plane blocks are not suggested for laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, or open prostatectomy. However, transversus abdominis plane blocks could serve as an analgesic option for Cesarean delivery (posterior or lateral approach) and open colorectal section (subcostal or lateral approach) if there exist contraindications to intrathecal morphine and thoracic epidural analgesia, respectively.Future investigation is required to compare posterior and subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks in clinical settings. Furthermore, posterior transversus abdominis plane blocks should be investigated for surgical interventions in which their lateral counterparts have proven not to be beneficial (e.g., laparoscopic hysterectomy/appendectomy, open prostatectomy). More importantly, because posterior transversus abdominis plane blocks can purportedly provide sympathetic blockade and visceral analgesia, they should be compared with thoracic epidural analgesia for open colorectal surgery. Finally, transversus abdominis plane blocks should be compared with newer truncal blocks (e.g., erector spinae plane and quadratus lumborum blocks) with well-designed and adequately powered trials.

Background Adequate pain control immediately after esophagostomy is critical to patient recovery and may be compromised by uncertainty regarding correct epidural catheter placement. The aim of the current study was to determine the role of performing an epidurogram in selective patients to assess epidural placement after esophagectomy. Methods Patients undergoing esophagectomy in a high-volume center were retrospectively reviewed to identify those in whom an epidurogram was performed less than 24 hours after surgery. Since 2012 epidurograms have been selectively performed in patients and have demonstrated features concerning for incorrect epidural catheter placement, including difficult/complicated insertion, negative sensory test, nonreassuring intraoperative hemodyamic response, and inadequate postoperative pain control. Results Fifty-two of 192 patients (27%; 43 men; age 65 ± 11 years) who underwent esophagostomy since 2012 had an epidurogram. Epidurograms were not associated with any adverse events. In 21 patients (40%) epidurogram findings led to a direct change in patient management, prompting either removal/replacement of an incorrectly sited catheter (n = 9), partial withdrawal of a catheter associated with unilateral contrast distribution (n = 2), or by endorsing a clinical decision to modify the analgesic regimen in a patient with a correctly sited epidural catheter (n = 10). Identifying and rescuing incorrect epidural catheter placement was not associated with longer intensive care unit/hospital stay or postoperative morbidity (p > 0.05) Conclusions We reviewed selective epidurogram use in esophagectomy patients to determine its role in “rescuing” inadequate pain control through expediting clinical decision-making. Findings confirm that in selected patients epidurography is feasible and has the potential to directly contribute to patient care.

BackgroundThe presence of thigh muscle edema as characterized by increased signal intensity on MRI has been used to support the diagnosis of presumed local anesthetic-induced myotoxicity reported after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with continuous adductor canal block (CACB). However, neither postoperative baseline imaging appearance nor muscle enzyme values have been described in conjunction with this clinical scenario. Thus, the usefulness of MRI or enzymatic biomarkers of muscle injury for supporting the diagnosis of local anesthetic myotoxicity is unknown.MethodsThis descriptive case series documents postoperative MRI appearance of the ipsilateral upper leg, plus preoperative and postoperative creatine phosphokinase and aldolase values in volunteer patients who underwent uncomplicated TKA with CACB.ResultsIn 27 volunteer patients with no postsurgical evidence of clinically relevant myotoxicity, anterior thigh muscle edema was universally evident on imaging (n=12) and muscle enzyme values (n=19) were normal or only slightly elevated.ConclusionsThe non-specificity of these findings suggests that MRI and near normal muscle enzyme levels are of limited diagnostic value when there is clinical suspicion of local anesthetic myotoxicity in the setting of TKA with CACB.Trial registration numberNCT04821245.

Local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is a life-threatening crisis, and many cognitive aids have been developed including three versions from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA).[1–3][1] Eye tracking has applications in medical education[4][2] and has been

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) periodically updates its practice advisories and associated cognitive aids. The 2020 version of the ASRA Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity checklist was created in response to user feedback, simulation studies and advances in medical knowledge. This report presents the 2020 version and discusses the rationale for its update.

Background Paravertebral pain catheters have been shown to be equally effective as epidural pain catheters for postoperative analgesia after thoracic surgery with the possible additional benefit of less hemodynamic effect. However, a methodology for verifying correct paravertebral catheter placement has not been tested or objectively confirmed in previous studies. The aim of the current study was to describe a technique to confirm the correct position of a paravertebral pain catheter using a contrast-enhanced paravertebrogram. Methods A retrospective cohort proof of concept study was performed including 10 consecutive patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery with radiographic contrast-enhanced confirmation of intraoperative paravertebral catheter placement (paravertebrogram). Results The results of the paravertebrograms, which were done in the operating room at the end of the procedure, verified correct paravertebral catheter placement in 10 of 10 patients. The radiographs documented dissemination of local anesthetic within the paravertebral space. Conclusion This proof of concept study demonstrated that a contrast-enhanced paravertebrogram could be used in conjunction with standard postoperative chest radiography to add valuable information for the assessment of paravertebral catheter placement. This technique has the potential to increase the accuracy and efficiency of postoperative analgesia, and to set a quality standard for future studies of paravertebral pain catheters.

The advent of ultrasound guidance has led to a renewed interest in regional anesthesia of the lower limb. In keeping with the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine’s ongoing commitment to provide intensive evidence-based education, this article presents a complete update of the 2005 comprehensive review on lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks. The current review article strives to (1) summarize the pertinent anatomy of the lumbar and sacral plexuses, (2) discuss the optimal approaches and techniques for lower limb regional anesthesia, (3) present evidence to guide the selection of pharmacological agents and adjuvants, (4) describe potential complications associated with lower extremity nerve blocks, and (5) identify informational gaps pertaining to outcomes, which warrant further investigation.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a format for multidisciplinary care and has been shown to predictably improve short term outcomes associated with surgical procedures. Esophagectomy has historically been associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality and as a result routine application and audit of ERAS guidelines specifically designed for esophageal resection has significant potential to improve outcomes associated with this complex procedure. A team of international experts in the surgical management of esophageal cancer was assembled and the existing literature was identified and reviewed prior to the production of the guidelines. Well established procedure specific components of ERAS were reviewed and updated with changes relevant to esophagectomy. Procedure specific, operative and technical sections were produced utilizing the best current level of evidence. All sections were rated regarding the level of evidence and overall recommendation according to the evaluation (GRADE) system. Thirty-nine sections were ultimately produced and assessed for quality of evidence and recommendations. Some sections were completely new to ERAS programs due to the fact that esophagectomy is the first guideline with a thoracic component to the procedure. The current ERAS society guidelines should be reviewed and applied in all centers looking to improve outcomes and quality associated with esophageal resection.

The advent of ultrasonography (US) has revolutionized the practice of regional anesthesiology. By enabling operators to visualize the needle, nerve and spread of local anesthetic (LA), US has improved the success, onset and performance time of peripheral nerve blocks,[1][1] while decreasing the

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine's Third Practice Advisory on local anesthetic systemic toxicity is an interim update from its 2010 advisory. The advisory focuses on new information regarding the mechanisms of lipid resuscitation, updated frequency estimates, the preventative role of ultrasound guidance, changes to case presentation patterns, and limited information related to local infiltration anesthesia and liposomal bupivacaine. In addition to emerging information, the advisory updates recommendations pertaining to prevention, recognition, and treatment of local anesthetic systemic toxicity. WHAT'S NEW IN THIS UPDATE?: This interim update summarizes recent scientific findings that have enhanced our understanding of the mechanisms that lead to lipid emulsion reversal of LAST, including rapid partitioning, direct inotropy, and post-conditioning. Since the previous practice advisory, epidemiological data have emerged that suggest a lower frequency of LAST as reported by single institutions and some registries, nevertheless a considerable number of events still occur within the general community. Contemporary case reports suggest a trend toward delayed presentation, which may mirror the increased use of ultrasound guidance (fewer intravascular injections), local infiltration techniques (slower systemic uptake), and continuous local anesthetic infusions. Small patient size and sarcopenia are additional factors that increase potential risk for LAST. An increasing number of reported events occur outside of the traditional hospital setting and involve non-anesthesiologists.

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) periodically revises and updates its checklist for the management of local anesthetic systemic toxicity. The 2017 update replaces the 2012 version and reflects new information contained in the third ASRA Practice Advisory on Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity. Electronic copies of the ASRA checklist can be downloaded from the ASRA Web site (www.asra.com) for inclusion in local anesthetic toxicity rescue kits or perioperative checklist repositories.

Background The objective of this narrative review of local anesthetic systemic toxicity is to provide an update on its prevention, diagnosis, and management. Methods The authors used a MEDLINE search of human studies, animal studies, and case reports and summarize findings following the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine practice advisories on local anesthetic systemic toxicity. Results Between March of 2014 and November of 2016, there were 47 cases of systemic toxicity described. Twenty-two patients (47 percent) were treated with intravenous lipid emulsion and two patients (4.3 percent) died. Seizures were the most common presentation. The spectrum of presenting neurologic and cardiovascular symptoms and signs are broad and can be obscured by perioperative processes. Local anesthetic type, dosage, and volume; site of injection; and patient comorbidities influence the rate of absorption from the site of injection and biodegradation of local anesthetics. Consider discussing appropriate dosages as a component of the surgical "time-out." A large-volume depot of dilute local anesthetic can take hours before reaching peak plasma levels. Oxygenation, ventilation, and advanced cardiac life support are the first priorities in treatment. Lipid emulsion therapy should be given at the first sign of serious systemic toxicity with an initial bolus dose of 100 ml for adults weighing greater than 70 kg and 1.5 ml/kg for adults weighing less than 70 kg or for children. Conclusion All physicians who administer local anesthetics should be educated regarding the nature of systemic toxicity and contemporary management algorithms that include lipid emulsion therapy.

In this narrative review article, the authors discuss the anatomy, nomenclature, history, approaches (posterior vs. lateral vs. subcostal), techniques, pharmacology, indications, and complications of transversus abdominis plane blocks, as well as possible alternative truncal blocks.Despite the scarcity of evidence and contradictory findings, certain clinical suggestions can nonetheless be made. Overall transversus abdominis plane blocks appear most beneficial in the setting of open appendectomy (posterior or lateral approach). Lateral transversus abdominis plane blocks are not suggested for laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, or open prostatectomy. However, transversus abdominis plane blocks could serve as an analgesic option for Cesarean delivery (posterior or lateral approach) and open colorectal section (subcostal or lateral approach) if there exist contraindications to intrathecal morphine and thoracic epidural analgesia, respectively.Future investigation is required to compare posterior and subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks in clinical settings. Furthermore, posterior transversus abdominis plane blocks should be investigated for surgical interventions in which their lateral counterparts have proven not to be beneficial (e.g., laparoscopic hysterectomy/appendectomy, open prostatectomy). More importantly, because posterior transversus abdominis plane blocks can purportedly provide sympathetic blockade and visceral analgesia, they should be compared with thoracic epidural analgesia for open colorectal surgery. Finally, transversus abdominis plane blocks should be compared with newer truncal blocks (e.g., erector spinae plane and quadratus lumborum blocks) with well-designed and adequately powered trials.

In 2017, JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of the MINT trials, prospective research involving 681 patients, all of whom received exercise therapy for low back pain. Half of the patients were randomized to additionally receive radiofrequency denervation (RFD) treatment. 88% of patients completed the 3-month follow-up, and 77% completed the 12-month follow-up. In this context, RFD provided no added benefit over the baseline of exercise therapy. In 2018, five authors, all experts in pain medicine, published a ‘Daring Discourse’ article in the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (RAPM), criticizing the findings of the MINT trials. Although 3 of the 5 authors of the RAPM ‘Daring Discourse’ article reported in conflict of interest statements—as is appropriate—that they were consultants to corporations that produce RFD equipment, the authors failed to disclose that 4 of 5 are on the editorial board of RAPM and all 5 are current officers in the medical organization that owns RAPM: that is, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Noteworthy, there was no published response from the MINT trial investigators to the Daring Discourse criticisms, either in the aforementioned example or in downstream venues where some of the same Daring Discourse authors continued their widely disseminated criticisms of the JAMA/MINT trials report. We believe that these actions taken by the Daring Discourse authors and RAPM have unfairly tipped the scales in the evaluation and application of RFD treatment of low back pain. In our commentary, we discuss: (1) the challenges associated with using clinical trials to predict clinical efficacy, (2) appropriate and inappropriate uses of postpublication commentary on original research findings, (3) the use of inappropriate commentary (and related means) to alter clinical practice in the presence of contradictory research findings, and (4) potential conflicts of interest related to the authors’ and Journal’s publication of the unopposed MINT trials criticism.

Despite its popularity, ultrasound (US)-guided regional anesthesiology is associated with significant limitations. The latter can be attributed to either the US machine (ie, decreased ability to insonate deep neural structures, as well as the thoracic spine) or the operator. Shortcomings associated with the operator can be explained by errors in perception (ie, ambiguous criteria for needle/catheter tip-to-nerve proximity and subparaneural local anesthetic injection) or interpretation. Perhaps the greatest confusion afflicting US-guided regional anesthesiology originates from an intellectual misconception pertaining to its application. Increasingly, authors are using US to identify interfascial planes where local anesthetic can be injected thereby "discovering" new truncal blocks. Often these novel blocks suffer from a lack of proper randomized, comparative validation.Fortunately, solutions have been proposed to remedy many shortcomings associated with US guidance. The inability of US to reliably insonate deep neural structures can be circumvented with adjunctive neurostimulation. Fluoroscopy and waveform analysis have been proven to increase the success rate of thoracic epidural blocks. For continuous nerve blocks, combined US-neurostimulation may provide an objective end point (ie, an evoked motor response) for neural proximity and subparaneural positioning of the catheter tip. Finally, the solution to the plethora of nonvalidated US-guided blocks is both elegant and simple. New nerve blocks should answer a specific clinical need, and their first descriptions should take the form of an adequately powered, observer-blinded, randomized comparison against the established standard of care or, at the very least, a large case series (eg, a Brief Technical Report).

Background and Objectives The Anesthesiology Review Committee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education sets core requirements for residency program accreditation. We periodically report and analyze the US anesthesiology residents9 training experience in regional anesthesia and pain medicine. Methods Resident caseload, procedure, and pain medicine evaluation data were aggregated for the resident cohort who graduated in 2015. These data were analyzed for present-day experience and compared with previous reports from years 1980, 1990, and 2000 graduates. Results Data were available for 1631 residents who graduated from 129 training programs. Regional anesthesia as a portion of the overall anesthesiology residents9 training experience remains unchanged since 1990. The distribution of regional anesthesia training has shifted from neuraxial to peripheral blocks. All residents at the 10th percentile and above achieved the benchmark for spinal, epidural, and peripheral nerve block anesthetics and for new pain evaluations. Conclusions The focus of US anesthesiology resident training in regional anesthesia and pain medicine has changed over the past 15 years by shifting from neuraxial to peripheral nerve block techniques. Previous training deficits have resolved for spinal anesthesia and peripheral nerve block. Procedural experience in pain medicine overwhelmingly involves epidural and facet injections.

In 2014, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine in collaboration with the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy convened a group of experts to compare pathways for anesthetic and analgesic management for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty in North America and Europe and to develop a practice pathway. This review is intended to be an analysis of the current literature to assist individuals and institutions in designing a pathway for total knee arthroplasty that is based on existing evidence and expert recommendation and may be customized according to individual settings.

Background Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes. Methods The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations. Results The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57–0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60–1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52–0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58–0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59–0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65–0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42–0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64–0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67–0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76–0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82–0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82–0.87. Conclusions Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation. Recommendation: neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty. Trial registry number PROSPERO CRD42018099935.

Objectives: In 2009 and again in 2012, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine assembled an expert panel to assess the evidence basis for ultrasound guidance as a nerve localization tool for regional anesthesia. Methods: The 2012 panel reviewed evidence from the first advisory but focused primarily on new information that had emerged since 2009. A new section was added regarding the accuracy and reliability of ultrasound for determining needle-to-nerve proximity. Jadad scores are used to rank study quality. Grades of recommendations consistent with their level of evidence are provided. Results: The panel offers recommendations based on synthesis and analysis of literature related to (1) the technical capabilities of ultrasound equipment and its operators, (2) comparison of ultrasound to other methods of nerve localization with regard to block characteristics, (3) comparison of block techniques where ultrasound is the sole nerve localization modality, and (4) major complications. Assessment of evidence strength and recommendations are made for upper- and lower-extremity, truncal, neuraxial, and pediatric blocks. Conclusions: Scientific evidence from the past 5 years has clarified and strengthened our understanding of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia as a nerve localization tool. High-level evidence supports ultrasound guidance contributing to superior characteristics with selected blocks, although absolute differences with the comparator technique are often relatively small (especially for upper-extremity blocks). The clinical meaningfulness of these differences is likely of variable importance to individual practitioners. The use of ultrasound significantly reduces the risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity as well as the incidence and intensity of hemidiaphragmatic paresis, but has no significant effect on the incidence of postoperative neurologic symptoms. What9s New in This Update? This evidence-based assessment of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia reviews findings from our 2010 publication and focuses on new meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large case series published since 2009. New to this exercise is an in-depth analysis of the accuracy and reliability of ultrasound guidance for identifying needle-to-nerve relationships. This version no longer addresses ultrasound for interventional pain medicine procedures, because the growth of that field demands separate consideration. Since our 2010 publication, new information has either supported or strengthened our original conclusions. There is no evidence that ultrasound is inferior to alternative nerve localization methods.

Objective Local anesthetic-induced myotoxicity occurs consistently in animal models, yet is reported rarely in humans. Herein, we describe 3 sentinel cases of local anesthetic myotoxicity after continuous adductor canal block (ACB). Case Report Three patients underwent total knee arthroplasty that was managed with subarachnoid block plus ACB induced with 1.5% lidocaine or 1.5% mepivacaine bolus followed by 0.2% ropivacaine at 8 mL-h. Although initial postoperative recovery was normal, each patient on either postoperative day 1 or 2 developed progressive, profound weakness of the quadriceps muscles. Clinical course, imaging, and neurophysiologic studies were consistent with myositis. The patients experienced partial to full functional recovery over the ensuing weeks to months. Conclusions Clinically apparent local anesthetic-induced myotoxicity has been documented rarely in humans undergoing non-ophthalmic surgery. We report 3 sentinel cases associated with continuous ACB.

Recent reports of local-anaesthetic (LA)-induced myotoxicity after peripheral nerve blocks have increased the interest in this less commonly known complication. Basic science evidence investigating LA-induced myotoxicity seems to demonstrate a pattern, but findings from human studies vary. This systematic review summarises the existing myotoxicity evidence and empirically examines its implications. Databases were searched for all in vitro animal and human studies evaluating LA-induced myotoxicity. Studies were stratified by design. Data sought included the model examined, LA used, injury mechanisms, nature of damage, and extent of recovery. For human studies, we also aimed to estimate prevalence and recovery rates. One hundred and fifteen studies, mainly animal and ophthalmic, were included. Myotoxicity risk factors included higher concentrations and prolonged exposure to LA, and use of bupivacaine. Injury mechanisms involved early and late aberrations to cytoplasmic calcium (Ca2+) homeostasis by the sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ ATPase. Incidence in ophthalmic studies was 0.77% (392 of 50 618). Inflammatory changes within a few days after exposure marked the onset of myotoxicity, and myo-degeneration followed within the first week post-exposure. Time to recovery in human muscles ranged between 4 days to 1 yr. None/partial and complete recovery were observed in 61% and 38% of patients, respectively. Across all experimental models, skeletal muscles exposed to LA consistently display myotoxic effects. Evidence is robust in animal and ophthalmic studies, and displays a concerning signal with continuous adductor canal block use in human case reports. Exploring the clinical prevalence, severity, and risk-reducing strategies of myotoxicity should be prioritised.

Objective We report a case of misdiagnosed neuralgic amyotrophy (brachial plexus neuritis, Parsonage-Turner syndrome). Our primary objective is to review the scientific basis for errors in clinical reasoning. Case Report We herein report a patient in whom signs and symptoms compatible with neuralgic amyotrophy presented after shoulder surgery. The patient9s brachial plexopathy was attributed incorrectly as a complication of interscalene brachial plexus block. The true diagnosis was made only after the patient developed neuralgic amyotrophy in the contralateral upper extremity after a subsequent shoulder surgery on that side, this time without a brachial plexus block. Conclusions Cognitive bias may lead to errors in clinical reasoning and consequent misdiagnosis. Temporal proximity may falsely implicate regional anesthesia as the causative agent.

To the Editor On behalf of my coauthors, I wish to thank Dr Yu and his colleagues[1][1] for alerting us to our oversight. As Dr Yu et al note correctly, the executive summary[2][2] of the third American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice Advisory on Local Anesthetic Systemic

The inability to ventilate a patient after successful intubation is a rare but emergent situation and may be caused by obstruction of the endotracheal tube, bilateral tension pneumothorax, esophageal intubation, severe bronchospasm, or mainstem bronchus intubation. We describe an increase in mean airway pressure, inability to ventilate, and loss of cardiac output secondary to a blood clot acting as a ball valve at the end of an endotracheal tube.

Anesthesiologists have the privilege and challenge of providing care for an extremely diverse population of patients, at times in urgent or emergent situations. We present a case of a 31-year-old woman with Pierre Robin sequence, severe juvenile scoliosis, and respiratory failure who underwent successful awake nasal fiberoptic intubation for tracheostomy at an adult tertiary care medical center. Familiarity with patient conditions infrequently encountered within our practice, as well as adherence to practice guidelines, proved essential to providing our patient with the safest care possible.

Background and Objectives: In March 2012, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine convened its second Practice Advisory on Neurological Complications in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. This update is based on the proceedings of that confer- ence and relevant information published since its conclusion. This arti- cle updates previously described information on the pathophysiology of spinal cord injury and adds new material on spinal stenosis, blood pressure control during neuraxial blockade, neuraxial injury subse- quent to transforaminal procedures, cauda equina syndrome/local anes- thetic neurotoxicity/arachnoiditis, and performing regional anesthetic or pain medicine procedures in patients concomitantly receiving gen- eral anesthesia or deep sedation. Methods: Recommendations are based on extensive review of research on humans or employing animal models, case reports, pathophysiology re- search, and expert opinion. Results: The pathophysiology of spinal cord injury associated with re- gional anesthetic techniques is reviewed in depth, including that related to mechanical trauma from direct needle/catheter injury or mass lesions, spinal cord ischemia or vascular injury from direct needle/catheter trauma, and neurotoxicity from local anesthetics, adjuvants, or antiseptics. Specific recommendations are offered that may reduce the likelihood of spinal cord injury associated with regional anesthetic or interventional pain medicine techniques. Conclusions: The practice advisory's recommendations may, in select cases, reduce the likelihood of injury. However, many of the described in- juries are neither predictable nor preventable based on our current state of knowledge. What's New: Since publication of initial recommendations in 2008, new information has enhanced our understanding of 5 specific entities: spinal stenosis, blood pressure control during neuraxial anesthesia, neuraxial injury subsequent to transforaminal techniques, cauda equina syndrome/local an- esthetic neurotoxicity/arachnoiditis, and performing regional anesthetic or pain procedures in patients concomitantly receiving general anesthesia or deep sedation. (Reg Anesth Pain Med 2015;40: 506–525)