Search

Background: Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks., Methods: We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement., Results: A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research., Conclusions: We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EA: grants from Swiss Academy for Anesthesia Research, Bbraun, Swiss National Science Foundation. Honoraria from Bbraun and Sintetica. JG: consulting fees from Pacira Biosciences and Pajunk Medical. AP: honoraria from FuijiFilm Sonosite. MW: advisory Board for Sintetica, Honoraria from Wisonic and Medovate. SA: Advisory Panel for DATAR innovations. JA: moderator of the Working Group Regional Anaesthesia Switzerland, Honoraria from Medtronic and Sintetica. AMRA: honoraria form AllerganSébastien Bloc—Consulting fees from BBraun—GE Medical Systems—Pajunk—Pfizer SAS. JB: Consulting fees from Intelligent Ultrasound. BC: jonoraria from Bbraun and Rivanna, Consulting from Stryker and Flat Medical, Research funding from Pacira, Share Options from Flat Medical. AC: speaking honoraria from GE Healthcare, royalties from textbook Oxford University Press. SC: consulting fees from MSD, Bbraun Medical, Wisonic, research grants from BARA (Belgian association of Regional anesthesia), ESRA and BeSARP (Belgian anesthesia society) HE-Consulting/Advisory Board Neuronoff, SPR, GateScience, NeuronoffBenjamin Fox—Speaking fees from Medovate and Sintetica. SG: consulting and speaking fees from MSD Switzerland. PH: royalties from Bestek Products. NH: Honoraria from Butterfly Network. RMGH- Honoraria from GE Healthcare. MH: consulting fees from Pacira Biosciences, Honoraria from Parcira Biosciences and Pajunk Medical. BMI: research funding to institution from SPR Therapeutics, Infutronix, Epimed International. AM: Consultant fees from Intelligent Ultrasound. CM: consultant fees from Masimo Corporation. SGM: Owner SGM Consulting, Partner Parvizi Surgical Innovations, Patent for Multicatheter infusion system. AN: Research support from SPR Therapeutics. SLO: Royalties from book Wolters-Kluwer. APawa: Honoraria from GE Healthcare, Consulting fees from Pacira Biosciences. PP: equipment support from Sonosiite Fujifilm Canada. MPS: Medovate speaking but no honoraria paid. SKS- Cofounder of Gate Science (developing a catheter for performing nerve blocks) JS: consulting fees from Sintetica. RT: Consulting fees from Clarius Mobile Health. VU: Associate Editor of the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia and Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine journals. TV: honoraria from CSL Behring, Pajunk., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Hemidiaphragmatic paresis after ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block is reported to occur in up to 67% of patients. We tested the hypothesis that an injection outside the brachial plexus sheath reduces the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paresis compared with an intrafascial injection while providing similar analgesia., Methods: Fifty American Society of Anesthesiologists I-III patients scheduled for elective upper limb surgery received a supraclavicular brachial plexus block using 30 mL of 1:1 mixture of mepivacaine 1% and ropivacaine 0.5%. The block procedures were randomized to position the needle tip either within the brachial plexus after piercing the sheath (intrafascial injection) or outside the brachial plexus sheath (extrafascial injection). The primary outcome was the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paresis 30 min after the injection, measured by M-mode ultrasonography. Additional outcomes included time to surgery readiness, and resting and dynamic pain scores at 24 hours postoperatively (Numeric Rating Scale, 0-10)., Results: The incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paresis 30 min after the injection was 9% (95% CI 1% to 29%) and 0% (95% CI 0% to 15%) in the intrafascial and extrafascial groups respectively (p=0.14). Extrafascial injection was associated with a longer time to surgery readiness (intrafascial: 18 min (95% CI: 16 to 21 min); extrafascial: 37 min (95% CI: 31 to 42 min); p<0.001). At 24 hours, resting and dynamic pain scores were similar between groups., Discussion: Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block with an extrafascial injection does not reduce the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paresis although it provides similar analgesia, when compared with an intrafascial injection. The longer time to surgery readiness is less compatible with contemporary operating theater efficiency requirements., Trial Registration Number: NCT03957772., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EA received grants from the Swiss Academy for Anesthesia Research (SACAR), Lausanne, Switzerland, B. Braun Medical AG, Sempach, Switzerland and the Swiss National Science Foundation, Bern, Switzerland to support his clinical research. EA has also received an honorarium from B. Braun Medical AG Switzerland, Sintetica UK and MSD AG Switzerland. SG received a research grant and an honorarium from MSD AG Switzerland., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)