Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of upper and lower limb nerve blocks

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.

Reducing rebound pain severity after arthroscopic shoulder surgery under general anesthesia and interscalene block: a two-centre randomized controlled trial of pre-emptive opioid treatment compared with placebo

PURPOSE

Although a single-injection interscalene block provides effective early postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery, patients may experience "rebound pain" when the block resolves. Our objective was to determine if oral hydromorphone (2 mg) given six hours after a single-injection interscalene block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery leads to a clinically significant reduction in the severity of rebound pain.

METHODS

After approval from research ethics boards, we conducted a two-centre, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled superiority trial. Patients received preoperative interscalene block, general anesthesia, and either hydromorphone or placebo six hours after the block. The primary outcome was the worst pain score in the first 24 hr postoperatively, measured on an 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale.

RESULTS

A total of 73 participants were randomly assigned to either the hydromorphone or placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean (standard deviation) worst pain score within 24 hr between the hydromorphone and placebo groups (6.5 [2.4] vs 5.9 [2.3]; mean difference, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 1.8). Similarly, we did not find any significant difference in the pain trajectory, opioid use, or incidence of nausea and vomiting between the groups. The mean time to worst pain was 14.6 hr, and the mean time to first rescue analgesia was 11.3 hr after interscalene block.

CONCLUSION

Hydromorphone 2 mg given six hours after interscalene block did not reduce the severity of rebound pain postoperatively compared with placebo in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); registered 19 October 2016.

Pain, Analgesic Use, and Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery : A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The REGAIN (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) trial found similar ambulation and survival at 60 days with spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Trial outcomes evaluating pain, prescription analgesic use, and patient satisfaction have not yet been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction after hip fracture surgery with spinal versus general anesthesia.

DESIGN

Preplanned secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02507505).

SETTING

46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery.

INTERVENTION

Spinal or general anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain on postoperative days 1 through 3; 60-, 180-, and 365-day pain and prescription analgesic use; and satisfaction with care.

RESULTS

A total of 1600 patients were enrolled. The average age was 78 years, and 77% were women. A total of 73.5% (1050 of 1428) of patients reported severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Worst pain over the first 24 hours after surgery was greater with spinal anesthesia (rated from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]; mean difference, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68]). Pain did not differ across groups at other time points. Prescription analgesic use at 60 days occurred in 25% (141 of 563) and 18.8% (108 of 574) of patients assigned to spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 1.06 to 1.65]). Satisfaction was similar across groups.

LIMITATION

Missing outcome data and multiple outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSION

Severe pain is common after hip fracture. Spinal anesthesia was associated with more pain in the first 24 hours after surgery and more prescription analgesic use at 60 days compared with general anesthesia.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Spinal Anesthesia or General Anesthesia for Hip Surgery in Older Adults

BACKGROUND

The effects of spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia on the ability to walk in older adults undergoing surgery for hip fracture have not been well studied.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, randomized superiority trial to evaluate spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia in previously ambulatory patients 50 years of age or older who were undergoing surgery for hip fracture at 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive spinal or general anesthesia. The primary outcome was a composite of death or an inability to walk approximately 10 ft (3 m) independently or with a walker or cane at 60 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included death within 60 days, delirium, time to discharge, and ambulation at 60 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1600 patients were enrolled; 795 were assigned to receive spinal anesthesia and 805 to receive general anesthesia. The mean age was 78 years, and 67.0% of the patients were women. A total of 666 patients (83.8%) assigned to spinal anesthesia and 769 patients (95.5%) assigned to general anesthesia received their assigned anesthesia. Among patients in the modified intention-to-treat population for whom data were available, the composite primary outcome occurred in 132 of 712 patients (18.5%) in the spinal anesthesia group and 132 of 733 (18.0%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.83). An inability to walk independently at 60 days was reported in 104 of 684 patients (15.2%) and 101 of 702 patients (14.4%), respectively (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.36), and death within 60 days occurred in 30 of 768 (3.9%) and 32 of 784 (4.1%), respectively (relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.57). Delirium occurred in 130 of 633 patients (20.5%) in the spinal anesthesia group and in 124 of 629 (19.7%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal anesthesia for hip-fracture surgery in older adults was not superior to general anesthesia with respect to survival and recovery of ambulation at 60 days. The incidence of postoperative delirium was similar with the two types of anesthesia. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; REGAIN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02507505.).

Continuous peripheral nerve blocks compared to thoracic epidurals or multimodal analgesia for midline laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Continuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNBs) have been investigated to control pain for abdominal surgery via midline laparotomy while avoiding the adverse events of opioid or epidural analgesia. The review compiles the evidence comparing CPNBs to multimodal and epidural analgesia.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using broad search terms in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane. Primary outcomes were pain scores and cumulative opioid consumption at 48 hours. Secondary outcomes were length of stay and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We rated the quality of the evidence using Cochrane and GRADE recommendations. The results were synthesized by meta-analysis using Revman.

RESULTS

Our final selection included 26 studies (1,646 patients). There was no statistically significant difference in pain control comparing CPNBs to either multimodal or epidural analgesia (low quality evidence). Less opioids were consumed when receiving epidural analgesia than CPNBs (mean difference [MD]: -16.13, 95% CI [-32.36, 0.10]), low quality evidence) and less when receiving CPNBs than multimodal analgesia (MD: -31.52, 95% CI [-42.81, -20.22], low quality evidence). The length of hospital stay was shorter when receiving epidural analgesia than CPNBs (MD: -0.78 days, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.27], low quality evidence) and shorter when receiving CPNBs than multimodal analgesia (MD: -1.41 days, 95% CI [-2.45, -0.36], low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in PONV comparing CPNBs to multimodal (high quality evidence) or epidural analgesia (moderate quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

CPNBs should be considered a viable alternative to epidural analgesia when contraindications to epidural placement exist for patients undergoing midline laparotomies.

Association of obesity with failure of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block: a two-centre, prospective, observational, cohort study

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the failure rate of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block is similar in obese patients compared with non-obese patients when performed as the primary anaesthetic technique. We recruited 105 obese (body mass index ≥ 30 kg.m-2 ) and 144 non-obese patients to this prospective, observational, cohort study conducted at two Canadian centres. A perineural technique of axillary brachial plexus block was performed using 30 ml ropivacaine 0.5% under real-time ultrasound guidance. Sensory and motor block assessment was carried out every 5 min until 30 min after block completion in all four terminal nerve distributions (radial, median, ulnar and musculocutaneous nerve). A composite score consisting of three sensory points and three motor points was used for assessment in each nerve distribution. A failed block was defined as a score of less than 14 points out of a possible 16 points, or a sensory block score less than 7 out of 8 points 30 min after block completion. Thirty minutes after block completion, obese patients had a higher failure rate of 33.7% (34/101) compared with 17.8% (24/135) for non-obese patients, with a failure rate difference (95%CI) of 15.9% (6.4-27.1%) between the groups. The median (IQR [range]) time to achieve a successful block in obese patients was 25 (20-30 [5-30]) min, compared with non-obese patients at 20 (15-30 [5-30]) min (p = 0.003). Despite a higher sensory-motor failure rate as per the composite score, the axillary brachial plexus block provided adequate surgical anaesthesia as indicated by a low need for conversion to general anaesthetic in obese (8.6%) and non-obese patients (7.0%; p = 0.656). This study showed that despite ultrasound guidance, obese patients had a slower onset time and higher axillary brachial plexus block failure rate at 30 min compared with non-obese patients.