Search

Background Hip arthroscopy is associated with moderate to severe postoperative pain. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study investigates the clinically analgesic effect of anterior quadratus lumborum block with multimodal analgesia compared to multimodal analgesia alone. The authors hypothesized that an anterior quadratus lumborum block with multimodal analgesia would be superior for pain control. Methods Ninety-six adult patients undergoing ambulatory hip arthroscopy were enrolled. Patients were randomized to either a single-shot anterior quadratus lumborum block (30 ml bupivacaine 0.5% with 2 mg preservative-free dexamethasone) or no block. All patients received neuraxial anesthesia, IV sedation, and multimodal analgesia (IV acetaminophen and ketorolac). The primary outcome was numerical rating scale pain scores at rest and movement at 30 min and 1, 2, 3, and 24 h. Results Ninety-six patients were enrolled and included in the analysis. Anterior quadratus lumborum block with multimodal analgesia (overall treatment effect, marginal mean [standard error]: 4.4 [0.3]) was not superior to multimodal analgesia alone (overall treatment effect, marginal mean [standard error]: 3.7 [0.3]) in pain scores over the study period (treatment differences between no block and anterior quadratus lumborum block, 0.7 [95% CI, –0.1 to 1.5]; P = 0.059). Postanesthesia care unit antiemetic use, patient satisfaction, and opioid consumption for 0 to 24 h were not significantly different. There was no difference in quadriceps strength on the operative side between groups (differences in means, 1.9 [95% CI, –1.5 to 5.3]; P = 0.268). Conclusions Anterior quadratus lumborum block may not add to the benefits provided by multimodal analgesia alone after hip arthroscopy. Anterior quadratus lumborum block did not cause a motor deficit. The lack of treatment effect in this study demonstrates a surgical procedure without benefit from this novel block. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a critical skill for all regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians to help diagnose relevant complications related to routine practice and guide perioperative management. In an effort to inform the regional anesthesia and pain community as well as address a need for structured education and training, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) commissioned this narrative review to provide recommendations for POCUS. The guidelines were written by content and educational experts and approved by the Guidelines Committee and the Board of Directors of the ASRA. In part I of this two-part series, clinical indications for POCUS in the perioperative and chronic pain setting are described. The clinical review addresses airway ultrasound, lung ultrasound, gastric ultrasound, the focus assessment with sonography for trauma examination and focused cardiac ultrasound for the regional anesthesiologist and pain physician. It also provides foundational knowledge regarding ultrasound physics, discusses the impact of handheld devices and finally, offers insight into the role of POCUS in the pediatric population.

Background and Objectives: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the form of focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) is a powerful clinical tool for anesthesiologists to supplement bedside evaluation and optimize cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the perioperative setting. However, few courses are available to train physicians. At Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), from March of 2013 to May of 2016, nine basic Focused Assessed Transthoracic Echocardiography (FATE) training courses were held. A large percentage of the participants were practicing regional anesthesiologists or trainees in fellowship for regional anesthesia and acute pain. In this study, a survey was used to assess clinical utilization as well as potential barriers to use for regional anesthesiologists. Methods: Following IRB approval, 183 past participants of the basic FATE training course were contacted weekly from November 22nd, 2016, through January 3rd, 2017, via email and sent a maximum 40-item electronic survey hosted on REDCap. Responses were analyzed by a blinded statistician. Results: 92 participants responded (50%), and 65 of the 92 (70.7%) indicated they had regional anesthesiology training or practice regional anesthesia regularly. Of the total number of respondents, 50% (95% CI: 40.3%, 59.8%; P-value = 0.001) have used FOCUS to guide clinical decision making. Of the regional anesthesiologists, 27 (45.8%) have used FOCUS to guide clinical decision making with left ventricular function assessment (40.7%) and hypovolemia (39.0%) being the most common reasons. Regional anesthesiologists utilized FOCUS in the following settings: preoperatively (44.6%), intraoperatively (41.5%), postoperatively (41.5%), and in the Intensive Care Unit (40.0%). Limitations were due to lack of opportunities (52.3%), resources (36.9%), and comfort with performance (30.8%). 84.4% agreed that basic FOCUS training should be a required part of anesthesia residents or fellows’ curriculum. Conclusions: This study is the first formal evaluation of the impact of the implementation of a FOCUS training course on regional anesthesiologists’ current practice. Nearly 50% of regional anesthesiologists used FOCUS to guide clinical decision-making following formal training. The limitations to the use of FOCUS were a lack of relevant opportunities and resources. This evaluation of clinical use following training provides insight into how FOCUS is used by regional anesthesiologists and the limitations to implementation in the perioperative setting.

This clinical focus review targets all anesthesiologists and seeks to highlight the following aspects of perioperative point-of-care ultrasound: clinical utility, technology advancements, training/certification, education, reporting/billing, and limitations.

Background The interscalene nerve block provides analgesia for shoulder surgery. To extend block duration, provide adequate analgesia, and minimize opioid consumption, the use of adjuvants such as dexamethasone as well as the application of perineural liposomal bupivacaine have been proposed. This randomized, double-blinded, noninferiority trial hypothesized that perineural liposomal bupivacaine is noninferior to standard bupivacaine with perineural dexamethasone in respect to average pain scores in the first 72 h after surgery. Methods A total of 112 patients undergoing ambulatory shoulder surgery were randomized into two groups. The liposomal bupivacaine group received a 15-ml premixed admixture of 10 ml of 133 mg liposomal bupivacaine and 5 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 55), while the bupivacaine with dexamethasone group received an admixture of 15 ml of 0.5% standard bupivacaine with 4 mg dexamethasone (n = 56), respectively. The primary outcome was the average numerical rating scale pain scores at rest over 72 h. The mean difference between the two groups was compared against a noninferiority margin of 1.3. Secondary outcomes were analgesic block duration, motor and sensory resolution, opioid consumption, numerical rating scale pain scores at rest and movement on postoperative days 1 to 4 and again on postoperative day 7, patient satisfaction, readiness for postanesthesia care unit discharge, and adverse events. Results A liposomal bupivacaine group average numerical rating scale pain score over 72 h was not inferior to the bupivacaine with dexamethasone group (mean [SD], 2.4 [1.9] vs. 3.4 [1.9]; mean difference [95% CI], –1.1 [–1.8, –0.4]; P < 0.001 for noninferiority). There was no significant difference in duration of analgesia between the groups (26 [20, 42] h vs. 27 [20, 39] h; P = 0.851). Motor and sensory resolutions were similar in both groups: 27 (21, 48) h versus 27 (19, 40) h (P = 0.436) and 27 [21, 44] h versus 31 (20, 42) h (P = 0.862), respectively. There was no difference in opioid consumption, readiness for postanesthesia care unit discharge, or adverse events. Conclusions Interscalene nerve blocks with perineural liposomal bupivacaine provided effective analgesia similar to the perineural standard bupivacaine with dexamethasone. The results show that bupivacaine with dexamethasone can be used interchangeably with liposomal bupivacaine for analgesia after shoulder surgery. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Interscalene nerve blockade remains one of the most commonly used anesthetic and analgesic approaches for shoulder surgery. The high incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis associated with the block, however, precludes its use among patients with compromised pulmonary function. To address this issue, recent studies have investigated phrenic-sparing alternatives that provide analgesia. None, however, have been able to reliably demonstrate surgical anesthesia without significant risk for hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. The utility of the superior trunk block has yet to be studied. The hypothesis was that compared with the interscalene block, the superior trunk block will provide noninferior surgical anesthesia and analgesia while sparing the phrenic nerve. Methods This randomized controlled trial included 126 patients undergoing arthroscopic ambulatory shoulder surgery. Patients either received a superior trunk block (n = 63) or an interscalene block (n = 63). The primary outcomes were the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis and worst pain score in the recovery room. Ultrasound was used to assess for hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. Secondary outcomes included noninvasively measured parameters of respiratory function, opioid consumption, handgrip strength, adverse effects, and patient satisfaction. Results The superior trunk group had a significantly lower incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis compared with the interscalene group (3 of 62 [4.8%] vs. 45 of 63 [71.4%]; P < 0.001, adjusted odds ratio 0.02 [95% CI, 0.01, 0.07]), whereas the worst pain scores in the recovery room were noninferior (0 [0, 2] vs. 0 [0, 3]; P = 0.951). The superior trunk group were more satisfied, had unaffected respiratory parameters, and had a lower incidence of hoarseness. No difference in handgrip strength or opioid consumption were detected. Superior trunk block was associated with lower worst pain scores on postoperative day 1. Conclusions Compared with the interscalene block, the superior trunk block provides noninferior surgical anesthesia while preserving diaphragmatic function. The superior trunk block may therefore be considered an alternative to traditional interscalene block for shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND Intraabdominal fluid extravasation (IAFE) after hip arthroscopy has historically been diagnosed in catastrophic circumstances with abdominal compartment syndrome requiring diuresis or surgical decompression. A previous retrospective study found the prevalence of symptomatic IAFE requiring diuresis or decompression to be 0.16%, with risk factors including surgical procedure and high pump pressures. IAFE can be diagnosed rapidly by using point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) via the Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma (FAST) examination, which is a well-established means to detect free fluid with high specificity and sensitivity. In this study, we used POCUS to determine the incidence of IAFE in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. We predicted a higher incidence and that patients with IAFE would have symptoms of peritoneal irritation such as pain and nausea. METHODS One hundred patients undergoing ambulatory hip arthroscopy were prospectively enrolled. A FAST examination was performed after induction by a trained anesthesiologist to exclude the preoperative presence of intraperitoneal fluid. Postoperatively, the same anesthesiologist repeated the FAST examination, and patients with new fluid in the abdominal or pelvic peritoneum were diagnosed with IAFE. Patients were followed up in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) for 6 hours assessing pain, antiemetic and opioid use, and length of stay. RESULTS Sixteen of 100 patients were found to have IAFE (16.0%; 99% confidence interval [CI], 8.4-28.1). These patients had, on average, a greater increase in pain score from their baseline assessment throughout their entire PACU stay (adjusted difference in means [99% CI]: 2.1 points [0.4-3.9]; P = .002). Patients with IAFE used more opioids, but this difference did not meet statistical significance (adjusted difference in means [99% CI]: 7.8 mg oral morphine equivalents [-2.8 to 18.3]; P = .053). There were no differences in postoperative nausea interventions or length of stay. CONCLUSIONS Our incidence of IAFE was 16%, showing that IAFE occurs quite commonly in hip arthroscopy. Patients with IAFE had a greater increase in pain scores from baseline throughout the PACU stay. None of our patients required interventions. These findings suggest that even a small amount of new fluid in the peritoneum may be associated with a worse postoperative experience. This study brings awareness to a common yet potentially life-threatening complication of hip arthroscopy and highlights a unique and meaningful way that anesthesiologists in the perioperative setting can use POCUS to rapidly identify and guide management of these patients. Further studies with a larger sample size are needed to identify surgical and patient risk factors.

Interscalene nerve blockade remains one of the most commonly used anesthetic and analgesic approaches for shoulder surgery. The high incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis associated with the block, however, precludes its use among patients with compromised pulmonary function. To address this issue, recent studies have investigated phrenic-sparing alternatives that provide analgesia. None, however, have been able to reliably demonstrate surgical anesthesia without significant risk for hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. The utility of the superior trunk block has yet to be studied. The hypothesis was that compared with the interscalene block, the superior trunk block will provide noninferior surgical anesthesia and analgesia while sparing the phrenic nerve.This randomized controlled trial included 126 patients undergoing arthroscopic ambulatory shoulder surgery. Patients either received a superior trunk block (n = 63) or an interscalene block (n = 63). The primary outcomes were the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis and worst pain score in the recovery room. Ultrasound was used to assess for hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. Secondary outcomes included noninvasively measured parameters of respiratory function, opioid consumption, handgrip strength, adverse effects, and patient satisfaction.The superior trunk group had a significantly lower incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis compared with the interscalene group (3 of 62 [4.8%] vs. 45 of 63 [71.4%]; P0.001, adjusted odds ratio 0.02 [95% CI, 0.01, 0.07]), whereas the worst pain scores in the recovery room were noninferior (0 [0, 2] vs. 0 [0, 3]; P = 0.951). The superior trunk group were more satisfied, had unaffected respiratory parameters, and had a lower incidence of hoarseness. No difference in handgrip strength or opioid consumption were detected. Superior trunk block was associated with lower worst pain scores on postoperative day 1.Compared with the interscalene block, the superior trunk block provides noninferior surgical anesthesia while preserving diaphragmatic function. The superior trunk block may therefore be considered an alternative to traditional interscalene block for shoulder surgery.

Point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) provides real-time, dynamic clinical evidence for providers to make potentially lifesaving medical decisions; however, these tools cannot be used effectively without appropriate training. Although there is always the option of traditional didactic methods, there has been a recent trend toward a "reverse classroom" web-based model using online e-learning modules. Our objective was to collect pilot data that would justify a future randomized controlled trial, comparing traditional didactics to an e-learning PoCUS curriculum for lung ultrasonography (LUS) and the focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) exam.Anesthesiology interns, residents (CA 1-3), and fellow trainees enrolled in a LUS and FAST exam course and were randomized to receive didactic lectures or e-learning. Trainees completed knowledge pre- and posttests. Surveys were administered to gauge learning satisfaction. All trainees completed a hands-on-training (HOT) workshop. Image acquisition was assessed through practical tests before HOT, immediately after HOT, and 5 months later.Eighteen trainees completed the study. There was no evidence of a difference in change in LUS knowledge test score from baseline to posttest between the e-learning and didactic groups (difference in median percentage point change [95 % CI]: 6.6 [-10.0, 23.2];There was no evidence of a difference between the e-learning and traditional didactic groups in learning or satisfaction outcomes. These results justify establishing an adequately powered, randomized controlled trial assessing the noninferiority of e-learning to traditional didactics for teaching LUS and FAST.

The purpose of this position paper is to define the scope of perioperative ultrasound (US), review the current status of US training practices during anesthesiology residency, and suggest the recommendations for current and future trainees on how to obtain perioperative US proficiency. We define per

At our institution, implementation of a formal training course in Basic Focus Assessed Transthoracic Echocardiography (FATE) was associated with an improvement in anesthesia trainees' ability to obtain transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) images. Total image acquisition scores improved by a median (Q1, Q3) 9.1 (2.9,14.7) percentage points from pre-to post-hands-on FATE course (n=20; p=0.001). Participants who returned for a subsequent assessment 5 months following the course demonstrated a median (Q1, Q3) 18.0 (9.1,22.1) percentage point improvement from their pre-course total image acquisition scores (n=11; p=0.002). This pilot study established the feasibility of our program and results suggest that the basic FATE course can be used to teach trainees TTE quickly, effectively, and with significant retention.

Background and Objectives Sciatic nerve block provides analgesia after foot and ankle surgery, but block duration may be insufficient. We hypothesized that perineural dexamethasone and buprenorphine would reduce pain scores at 24 hours. Methods Ninety patients received ultrasound-guided sciatic (25 mL 0.25% bupivacaine) and adductor canal (10 mL 0.25% bupivacaine) blockade, with random assignment into 3 groups (30 patients per group): control blocks + intravenous (IV) dexamethasone (4 mg) (control); control blocks + IV buprenorphine (150 μg) + IV dexamethasone (IV buprenorphine); and nerve blocks containing buprenorphine + dexamethasone (perineural). Patients received mepivacaine neuraxial anesthesia and postoperative oxycodone/acetaminophen, meloxicam, pregabalin, and ondansetron. Patients and assessors were blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was pain with movement at 24 hours. Results There was no difference in pain with movement at 24 hours (median score, 0). However, the perineural group had longer block duration versus control (45.6 vs 30.0 hours). Perineural patients had lower scores for “worst pain” versus control (median, 0 vs 2). Both IV buprenorphine and perineural groups were less likely to use opioids on the day after surgery versus control (28.6%, 28.6%, and 60.7%, respectively). Nausea after IV buprenorphine (but not perineural buprenorphine) was severe, frequent, and bothersome. Conclusions Pain scores were very low at 24 hours after surgery in the context of multimodal analgesia and were not improved by additives. However, perineural buprenorphine and dexamethasone prolonged block duration, reduced the worst pain experienced, and reduced opioid use. Intravenous buprenorphine caused troubling nausea and vomiting. Future research is needed to confirm and extend these observations.

OBJECTIVES Fibromyalgia (FM) characteristics can be evaluated using a simple, self-reported measure that correlates with postoperative opioid consumption after lower-extremity joint arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine whether preoperative pain history and the FM survey score can predict postoperative outcomes after shoulder arthroscopy, which may cause moderate to severe pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this prospective study, 100 shoulder arthroscopy patients completed preoperative validated self-report measures to assess baseline quality of recovery score, physical functioning, depression, anxiety, and neuropathic pain. FM characteristics were evaluated using a validated measure of widespread pain and comorbid symptoms on a 0 to 31 scale. Outcomes were assessed on postoperative day 2 (opioid consumption [primary], pain, physical functioning, quality of recovery score), and day 14 (opioid consumption, pain). RESULTS FM survey scores ranged from 0 to 13. The cohort was divided into tertiles for univariate analyses. Preoperative depression and anxiety (P

Previous research suggests that increases in airway resistance are associated with a depression in a number of hemodynamic variables. In this study we evaluated the hypothesis that these changes may be in part associated and explainable with increases in pulmonary vascular pressures. We therefore examined the effect of increasing airway resistance on a number of cardiac parameters, and estimated pulmonary arterial pressures using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in spontaneously breathing healthy volunteers. Methods: Subjects were connected to a bioreactance monitor capable of determining hemodynamic parameters including stroke volume (SV), and cardiac index (CI). Blood pressure (NIBP) was obtained non-invasively. Volunteers sequentially breathed for 2 minutes through endotracheal tubes (ETT) with decreasing internal diameters (ID) between 8.0 and 3.0 mm in order to simulate increasing airway resistance, while attached to spirometric equipment. A second measurement cycle was performed for validation. TTE was performed focusing on the estimation of pulmonary arterial pressures during the experiment. Statistical analyses were performed using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method and Spearman correlation. Results: All subjects were male, (mean age 29.8 years (SD 5.4), mean BMI 26.75 kg/m2 (SD 4.8)). Mean baseline SV and CI were 117.48 ml (SD 14.0) and 3.72 l/min/m2 (SD 0.7); both, SV and CI decreased significantly vs. baseline when breathing through ETT ID 3.0 (111.50 ml (SD 15.3), p=0.0016 and 3.51 l/min/m2 (SD 0.7), p=0.0007, respectively). For the same breathing cycles, no change in averaged systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (SPAP) was detected between baseline and ETT ID 3.0 (24.45 mm Hg (SD 5.1) vs. 24.87 mm Hg (SD 5.6), p=0.43). Discussion: Although detecting hemodynamic alterations when simulating upper airway resistance in healthy volunteers, there was no significant change in systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (SPAP) seen. Further research is needed to investigate potential mechanisms associated to hemodynamic changes in response to increases in airway resistance.