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.)

Background and Objectives: Peripheral nerve blocks have been integrated into most multimodal analgesia protocols for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The adductor canal block (ACB) has gained popularity because of its quadriceps muscle sparing. Similarly, local anesthetic injection between the popliteal artery and the posterior capsule of the knee, IPACK block, has been described to provide analgesia to the posterior capsule of the knee with motor-sparing qualities. This prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the analgesic efficacy of adding the IPACK block to our current multimodal analgesic regimen, including the ACB, in patients undergoing primary TKA., Methods: 119 patients were randomized to receive either an IPACK or a sham block in addition to multimodal analgesia and an ACB. We were set to assess pain in the back of the knee 6 hours after surgery. Other end points included quality of recovery after surgery, pain scores, opioid requirements, and functional measures., Results: Patients who received the IPACK block had less pain in the back of the knee 6 hours after surgery when compared with the sham block: 21.7% vs 45.8%, p<0.01. There was marginal improvement in other pain measures in the first 24 hours after surgery. However, opioid requirements, quality of recovery and functional measures were similar between the two groups., Conclusion: The IPACK block reduced the incidence of posterior knee pain 6 hours postoperatively., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Dr Elkassabany is a consultant for Foundry therapeutics. Dr Nelson declares working as a consultant for Acutive Medical, Allentwon, Pennsylvania and for Zimmer Biomet., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Although peripheral nerve blocks are associated with improved pain control and end outcomes among older adults with hip fracture, their current utilization among US hip fracture patients is not well understood. We characterized contemporary use of peripheral nerve blocks after hip fracture over time and identified predictors of nerve block receipt., Design: Retrospective cohort study of claims data from one large national private US insurer., Setting: US acute care hospitals., Participants: A total of 94 985 adults aged 50 years and older hospitalized for a femoral neck, intertrochanteric, or subtrochanteric fracture; 409 263 adults aged 50 years and older hospitalized for elective hip or knee arthroplasty between 2004 and 2016., Measurements: Receipt of a peripheral nerve block for pain control, based on Current Procedural Terminology codes in physician service claims., Results: Overall, 2874 hip fracture patients (3.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.9-3.1) received a nerve block for pain control, and the percentage receiving a block increased from .4% in 2004-2006 (95% CI = .3%-.6%) to 4.6% in 2013-2016 (95% CI = 4.4%-4.8%; P < .001). The adjusted odds of receiving a nerve block was lower for patients with vs without dementia (odds ratio [OR] = .88; 95% CI = .80-.98; P = .02) and among patients aged 75 to 84 vs 64 years or younger (OR = .86; 95% CI = .74-1.00; P = .02). The odds of nerve block receipt did not vary according to race, ethnicity, fracture location, or most other common comorbidities. Compared with patients with hip fracture, the adjusted odds of nerve block receipt were 2 times higher among patients undergoing elective hip replacement and more than 30 times higher among patients undergoing elective knee replacement., Conclusion: Although use of peripheral nerve blocks for pain control after hip fracture has increased over time, fewer than 5 of every 100 patients hospitalized with hip fracture currently receive a peripheral nerve block, suggesting possible underuse. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:835-840, 2020., (© 2020 The American Geriatrics Society.)

The subspecialty of regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RAAPM) is in a position to lead changes that may impact the current opioid crisis. At the hospital level, RAAPM experts can implement evidence-based multimodal analgesic clinical pathways featuring regional anesthesia. Multimodal analgesia consists of using two or more analgesic modalities targeting pain pathways at various levels to improve pain control, while also aiming to reduce opioid utilization and related adverse effects. These types of pathways or protocols have been widely applied in the joint replacement population. This review focuses on the current state of the evidence regarding individual elements of a multimodal analgesic pathway for patients with total knee arthroplasty including new regional anesthesia techniques like the IPACK (Infiltration between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Knee) block and suggests future research directions to improve the clinical care of this surgical population in the future., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Adductor canal block (ACB) has emerged as an appealing alternative to femoral nerve block (FNB) that produces a predominantly sensory nerve block by anesthetizing the saphenous nerve. Studies have shown greater quadriceps strength preservation with ACB compared with FNB, but no advantage has yet been shown in terms of fall risk. The Tinetti scale is used by physical therapists to assess gait and balance, and total score can estimate a patient's fall risk. We designed this study to test the primary hypothesis that FNB results in a greater proportion of "high fall risk" patients postoperatively using the Tinetti score compared with ACB., Methods: After institutional review board approval, informed written consent to participate in the study was obtained. Patients undergoing primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty were eligible for enrollment in this double-blind, randomized trial. Patients received either an ACB or FNB (20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine) with catheter placement (8 mL/h of 0.2% ropivacaine) in the setting of multimodal analgesia. Continuous infusion was stopped in the morning of postoperative day (POD)1 before starting physical therapy (PT). On POD1, PT assessed the primary outcome using the Tinetti score for gait and balance. Patients were considered to be at high risk of falling if they scored <19. Secondary outcomes included manual muscle testing of the quadriceps muscle strength, Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and ambulation distance on POD1 and POD2. The quality of postoperative analgesia and the quality of recovery were assessed with American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire Revised and Quality of Recovery-9 questionnaire, respectively., Results: Sixty-two patients were enrolled in the study (31 ACB and 31 FNB). No difference was found in the proportion of "high fall risk" patients on POD1 (21/31 in the ACB group versus 24/31 in the FNB group [P = 0.7]; relative risk, 1.14 [95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.56]) or POD2 (7/31 in the ACB versus 14/31 in the FNB group [P = 0.06]; relative risk, 2.0 [95% confidence interval, 0.94-4.27]). The average distance of ambulation during PT and time to up and go were similar on POD1 and POD2. Manual muscle testing grades were significantly higher on POD1 in the ACB group when compared with that in the FNB (P = 0.001) (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds, 2.25 [95% confidence interval, 1.35-4.26]). There were no other differences in postoperative outcomes., Conclusions: ACB results in greater preservation of quadriceps muscle strength. Although we did not detect a significant reduction in fall risk when compared with FNB, based on the upper limit of the relative risk, it may very well be present. Further study is needed with a larger sample size.

Objectives Pain control after shoulder arthroscopy can be challenging, often relying on opioids. The study aims to measure the quality of recovery (QoR) before and after implementation of a "Multimodal Perioperative Pain Protocol" (MP3) in patients undergoing ambulatory shoulder arthroscopy. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Free-standing ambulatory surgery facility of a tertiary care academic center. Subjects Patients undergoing ambulatory shoulder arthroscopy. Methods The primary end point of the study was the QoR-9 score at 24 hours, 48 hours, and one week after surgery. Secondary end points included 1) measuring the quality of pain management using the Revised American Pain Society Patient Oriented Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R) and 2) postoperative opioid requirements. Results Data from132 patients in the control group (pre-intervention) and 120 patients in the MP3 group were analyzed. The QoR-9 scores were significantly higher for the MP3 group at all time points, but only met the minimal clinical important difference threshold at 24 hours (13.4 vs 14.9, P  < 0.05) and 48 hours (14.0 vs 15.0, P  < 0.05) postoperatively. Patients reported better quality of pain management after implementation of the MP3 in the domains of pain intensity, pain interference with activity, and sleep, and they reported the presence of negative emotions up to two days after ambulatory shoulder surgery. In addition, this protocol significantly reduced opioid consumption up to three days after surgery. Conclusions Implementation of the MP3 improved the overall QoR and many aspects of postoperative pain relief while reducing total opioid consumption in patients undergoing ambulatory shoulder surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. This study aims to assess diaphragmatic excursion and measure pulmonary functions as measures of the degree to which the phrenic nerve is blocked after ISB with two different concentrations of ropivacaine: 0.2% and 0.1%. Design. Randomized, double-blinded study. Setting and Patients. Ambulatory surgical facility. Subjects. Fifty patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy for rotator cuff repair. Methods. Patients were randomized to receive ultrasound-guided ISB with 20mL of either 0.2% or 0.1% ropivacaine. Diaphragmatic excursion was measured using M-mode ultrasound. Pulmonary functions were assessed by portable spirometer. Additional outcome data included oxygen saturation in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), pain scores, quality of recovery scores (QOR), and opioid consumption over 72hour period after surgery. Results. Forced vital capacity (FVC) was significantly reduced 30minutes after block placement and in PACU in the 0.2% group when compared with the 0.1% group (P=0.04, P= 0.03, respectively). Forced expiratory volume (FEV1) was also significantly decreased in the 0.2% group in PACU when compared with the 0.1% group (P=0.04). There were no significant differences in pain scores, length of stay, and total opioid consumption in PACU. Patients who received 0.2% ropivacaine had a longer block duration (18 vs 11.9hours, P=0.04) and used less opioid in the 72hours after surgery (55mg vs 102mg codeine equivalents, P=0.02), when they were compared to their counterparts who received 0.1% for their block. Conclusion. 0.1% ropivacaine may impair pulmonary function less than 0.2% ropivacaine. The clinical significance of these differences needs to be further studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]