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

Despite the perception that ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) is becoming a universally adopted tool for peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs), actual data on the utilization of ultrasound for regional anesthesia remain limited. The primary aim of this study was to define the incidence of

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.

Diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) has emerged as a powerful tool to help anesthesiologists guide patient care in both the perioperative setting and the subspecialty arenas. Although anesthesiologists can turn to guideline statements pertaining to other aspects of ultrasound use, to date there remains little in the way of published guidance regarding diagnostic PoCUS. To this end, in 2018, the American Society of Anesthesiologists chartered an ad hoc committee consisting of 23 American Society of Anesthesiologists members to provide recommendations on this topic. The ad hoc committee convened and developed a committee work product. This work product was updated in 2021 by an expert panel of the ad hoc committee to produce the document presented herein. The document, which represents the consensus opinion of a group of practicing anesthesiologists with established expertise in diagnostic ultrasound, addresses the following issues: (1) affirms the practice of diagnostic PoCUS by adequately trained anesthesiologists, (2) identifies the scope of practice of diagnostic PoCUS relevant to anesthesiologists, (3) suggests the minimum level of training needed to achieve competence, (4) provides recommendations for how diagnostic PoCUS can be used safely and ethically, and (5) provides broad guidance about diagnostic ultrasound billing.

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 Society (ASRA) commissioned this narrative review to provide recommendations for POCUS. The recommendations were written by content and educational experts and were approved by the guidelines committee and the Board of Directors of the ASRA. In part II of this two-part series, learning goals and objectives were identified and outlined for achieving competency in the use of POCUS, specifically, airway ultrasound, lung ultrasound, gastric ultrasound, the focus assessment with sonography for trauma exam, and focused cardiac ultrasound, in the perioperative and chronic pain setting. It also discusses barriers to POCUS education and training and proposes a list of educational resources. For each POCUS section, learning goals and specific skills were presented in the Indication, Acquisition, Interpretation, and Medical decision-making framework.

Preoperative fasting guidelines emerged in the 1800s, prompted by perioperative aspiration deaths.[1][1] Without objective data, modern fasting guidelines for some non-clear liquids, such as orange juice (OJ) with pulp, rely on expert opinion. Gastric point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can

Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) has been well described for adult perioperative patients; however, the literature on children remains limited. Regional anesthesiologists have gained interest in expanding their clinical repertoire of PoCUS from regional anesthesia to increasing numbers of applications. This manuscript reviews and highlights emerging PoCUS applications that may improve the quality and safety of pediatric care.In infants and children, lung and airway PoCUS can be used to identify esophageal intubation, size airway devices such as endotracheal tubes, and rule in or out a pulmonary etiology for clinical decompensation. Gastric ultrasound can be used to stratify aspiration risk when nil-per-os compliance and gastric emptying are uncertain. Cardiac PoCUS imaging is useful to triage causes of undifferentiated hypotension or tachycardia and to determine reversible causes of cardiac arrest. Cardiac PoCUS can assess for pericardial effusion, gross ventricular systolic function, cardiac volume and filling, and gross valvular pathology. When PoCUS is used, a more rapid institution of problem-specific therapy with improved patient outcomes is demonstrated in the pediatric emergency medicine and critical care literature.Overall, PoCUS saves time, expedites the differential diagnosis, and helps direct therapy when used in infants and children. PoCUS is low risk and should be readily accessible to pediatric anesthesiologists in the operating room.

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.

This article in our point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) series discusses the benefits of focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) for the regional anesthesiologist and pain specialist. Focused cardiac US is an important tool for all anesthesiologists assessing patients with critical conditions such as shock and cardiac arrest. However, given that ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia is emerging as the new standard of care, there is an expanding role for ultrasound in the perioperative setting for regional anesthesiologists to help improve patient assessment and management. In addition to providing valuable insight into cardiac physiology (preload, afterload, and myocardial contractility), FoCUS can also be used either to assess patients at risk of complications related to regional anesthetic technique or to improve management of patients undergoing regional anesthesia care. Preoperatively, FoCUS can be used to assess patients for significant valvular disease, such as severe aortic stenosis or derangements in volume status before induction of neuraxial anesthesia. Intraoperatively, FoCUS can help differentiate among complications related to regional anesthesia, including high spinal or local anesthetic toxicity resulting in hemodynamic instability or cardiac arrest. Postoperatively, FoCUS can help diagnose and manage common yet life-threatening complications such as pulmonary embolism or derangements in volume status. In this article, we introduce to the regional anesthesiologist interested in learning FoCUS the basic views (subcostal 4-chamber, subcostal inferior vena cava, parasternal short axis, parasternal long axis, and apical 4-chamber), as well as the relevant sonoanatomy. We will also use the I-AIM (Indication, Acquisition, Interpretation, and Medical decision making) framework to describe the clinical circumstances where FoCUS can help identify and manage obvious pathology relevant to the regional anesthesiologist and pain specialist, specifically severe aortic stenosis, hypovolemia, local anesthetic systemic toxicity, and massive pulmonary embolism.

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.

Interest in perioperative point-of-care ultrasound (P-PoCUS) has grown tremendously over the past few years[1][1] due to its ability to change management[2][2] and improve patient care. Increased availability and affordability of ultrasound machines presents P-PoCUS with the potential to become a

This article in our point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) series is dedicated to the role the focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) exam plays for the regional anesthesiologist and pain specialists in the perioperative setting. The FAST exam is a well-established and extensively studied PoCUS exam in both surgical and emergency medicine literature with over 20 years demonstrating its benefit in identifying the presence of free fluid in the abdomen following trauma. However, only recently has the FAST exam been shown to be beneficial to the anesthesiologist in the perioperative setting as a means to identify the extravasation of free fluid into the abdomen from the hip joint following hip arthroscopy. In this article, we will describe how to obtain the basic FAST views (subcostal four-chamber view, perihepatic right upper quadrant view, perisplenic left upper quadrant view, and pelvic view in the longitudinal and short axis) as well as cover the relevant sonoanatomy. We will describe pathological findings seen with the FAST exam, primarily free fluid in the peritoneal space as well as in the pericardial sac. As is the case with any PoCUS skill, the application evolves with understanding and utilization by new clinical specialties. Although this article will provide clinical examples of where the FAST exam is beneficial to the regional anesthesiologist and pain specialist, it also serves as an introduction to this powerful PoCUS skill in order to encourage clinical practitioners to expand the application of the FAST exam within the scope of regional anesthesia and pain management practice.

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.

It has been suggested for many years that regional anaesthesia is advantageous in high-risk patients, either as the sole anaesthetic or in combination with general anaesthesia. Regional techniques are safe and even more so when guided by ultrasound. In the high-risk patient population, ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia (UGRA) can help decrease risk of perioperative morbidity and improve short-term as well as long-term outcomes, particularly in the orthopaedic, vascular, oncologic and chronic pain patient populations. Nevertheless, complications do still occur and benefits of a specific regional nerve blockade need to be weighed against potential risks on an individual basis. The emergence of reasonably priced, easy-to-use ultrasound machines facilitates regional anaesthesia, and this kind of anaesthesia may become the standard of care in high-risk patients.

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

This article in our series on point-of-care ultrasound (US) for the regional anesthesiologist and pain management specialist describes the emerging role of gastric ultrasonography. Although gastric US is a relatively new point-of-care US application in the perioperative setting, its relevance for the regional anesthesiologist and pain specialist is significant as our clinical practice often involves providing deep sedation without a secured airway. Given that pulmonary aspiration is a well-known cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality, the ability to evaluate for NPO (nil per os) status and risk stratify patients scheduled for anesthesia is a powerful skill set. Gastric US can provide valuable insight into the nature and volume of gastric content before performing a block with sedation or inducing anesthesia for an urgent or emergent procedure where NPO status is unknown. Patients with comorbidities that delay gastric emptying, such as diabetic gastroparesis, neuromuscular disorders, morbid obesity, and advanced hepatic or renal disease, may potentially benefit from additional assessment via gastric US before an elective procedure. Although gastric US should not replace strict adherence to current fasting guidelines or be used routinely in situations when clinical risk is clearly high or low, it can be a useful tool to guide clinical decision making when there is uncertainty about gastric contents.In this review, we will cover the relevant scanning technique and the desired views for gastric US. We provide a methodology for interpretation of findings and for guiding medical management for adult patients. We also summarize the current literature on specific patient populations including obstetrics, pediatrics, and severely obese subjects.

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.

In this article, we discuss the emerging role of lung point-of-care ultrasonography for regional anesthesiologists and pain management specialists. Lung ultrasonography is a well-established clinical tool that is used on a routine basis in emergency rooms and critical care units internationally to evaluate patients with respiratory distress; however, its benefits to the regional anesthesiologist and pain specialist are not as well known and are practiced less frequently. This review article covers the clinical evidence in support of lung point-of-care ultrasonography as a rapid and superior tool to traditional imaging modalities such as chest radiography and fluoroscopy. As anesthesiologists routinely perform nerve blocks that put patients at potential risk of complications such as pneumothorax or diaphragmatic paresis, it is important to understand how to use lung ultrasonography to evaluate for these conditions, as well as to differentiate between other potential causes of respiratory distress, such as interstitial syndrome and pleural effusions. This article describes the normal and pathological findings that can be used to quickly and confidently evaluate a patient for these conditions.

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.