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: Current understanding of the mechanism of action of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is primarily based on cadaver studies. We performed an imaging study in patients undergoing hip surgery to enhance the understanding of the analgesic mechanisms following a PENG block., Materials and Methods: 10 patients scheduled for hip surgery received an ultrasound-guided PENG block with 18 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine mixed with 2 mL of a contrast agent. After completion of the block, a high-resolution CT scan was performed to obtain a three-dimensional reconstruction of the injectate's dispersion., Results: The CT imaging revealed that injectate was mainly confined to the epimysium of the iliacus and the psoas muscle, with a minor spread to the hip capsule. Contrast dye was detected within the iliacus and/or the psoas muscle in all patients. No observed spread to either the subpectineal plane or the obturator foramen was detected., Conclusion: Our study suggests that the analgesic effect of the PENG block may be related to the block of the branches of the femoral nerve traveling within the iliopsoas muscle without a spread pattern commensurate with the block of the obturator nerve., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT06062134)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Elective caesarean section is performed mainly under spinal anaesthesia using hyperbaric bupivacaine combined with opioids. Despite rapid onset, good quality anaesthesia, bupivacaine provides a long duration of motor block and is related to maternal hypotension. Current policies appeal for implementation of enhanced recovery procedures after caesarean section. Hyperbaric prilocaine is an intermediate-acting local anaesthetic known for its efficacy in ambulatory surgery. Evidence on the clinical relevance of intrathecal prilocaine use for caesarean section is currently lacking., Objectives: We aimed to investigate whether hyperbaric prilocaine would offer a shorter motor block and recovery than bupivacaine, when comparing equipotent doses. We also assessed the characteristics of sensory block, maternal haemodynamics and side effects for both mother and newborn., Design: Prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled, two-centre, clinical trial., Setting: One university teaching hospital and one general teaching hospital in Brussels, Belgium., Patients: American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status 2 parturients (n = 40) undergoing caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive spinal anaesthesia using hyperbaric prilocaine 50 mg or hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg, both given with sufentanil 2.5 μg and morphine 100 μg. An epidural catheter was introduced as a backup in case of failure., Main Outcomes: The primary outcome was the motor block regression (modified Bromage scale 1 to 6). Secondary outcomes included sensory block characteristics, first unassisted ambulation, maternal side effects, newborns' parameters and overall satisfaction., Results: Median [IQR] motor block was significantly shorter in the hyperbaric prilocaine group (110 [104 to 150] min versus 175 [135 to 189] min, P = 0.001). First unassisted ambulation was achieved earlier after prilocaine (204.5 [177 to 246.5] min versus 314 [209.25 to 400] min, P = 0.007), and the incidence of maternal hypotension was significantly higher with bupivacaine (P = 0.033). No supplementary epidural analgesia was needed., Conclusion: Prilocaine provides shorter motor block, faster recovery and better haemodynamic stability than bupivacaine while offering equivalent surgical anaesthesia., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02973048, EudraCT: 2016-003010-26., (Copyright © 2021 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.)