Peripheral nerve block anesthesia/analgesia for patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: recommendations from the International Consensus on Anesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery (ICAROS) group based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis: randomized controlled and observational studies investigating the impact of PNB utilization on major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, neurologic, infectious, and bleeding complications.Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were queried from 1946 to August 4, 2020.The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality and for the development of recommendations. RESULTS: Analysis of 122 studies revealed that PNB use (compared with no use) was associated with lower ORs for (OR with 95% CIs) for numerous complications (total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), respectively): cognitive dysfunction (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53/OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80), respiratory failure (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74/OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75), cardiac complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93/OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), surgical site infections (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64/OR 0.86 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), thromboembolism (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96/OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and blood transfusion (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86/OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current body of evidence, the consensus group recommends PNB use in THA/TKA for improved outcomes. RECOMMENDATION: PNB use is recommended for patients undergoing THA and TKA except when contraindications preclude their use. Furthermore, the alignment of provider skills and practice location resources needs to be ensured. Evidence level: moderate; recommendation: strong.

History and evolution of regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine fellowship training.

INTRODUCTION: In 2016, individual training programs in regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RA/APM) became eligible for accreditation by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), thereby culminating a process that began 15 years earlier. Herein, we review the origins of regional anesthesia training in the USA, the events leading up to accreditation and the current state of the fellowship. METHODS: We reviewed pertinent literature on the historical aspects of RA/APM in the USA, related subspecialty training and the formation and current state of RA/APM fellowship training programs. Additionally, a survey was distributed to the directors of the 74 RA/APM fellowships that existed as of 1 January 2017 to gather up-to-date, program-specific information. RESULTS: The survey yielded a 76% response rate. Mayo Clinic Rochester and Virginia Mason Medical Center likely had the first structured RA/APM fellowships with formalized curriculums and stated objectives, both starting in 1982. Most programs (86%), including ACGME and non-ACGME fellowships, came into existence after the year 2000. Six responding programs have or previously had RA/APM comingled with another subspecialty. Eight current programs originally offered unofficial or part-time fellowships in RA/APM, with fellows also practicing as attending physicians. DISCUSSION: The history of RA/APM training in the USA is a tortuous one. It began with short 'apprenticeships' under the tutelage of the early proponents of regional anesthesia and continues today with 84 official RA/APM programs and a robust fellowship directors' group. RA/APM programs teach skills essential to the practice and improvement of anesthesiology as a specialty.

Anaesthetic care of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: consensus recommendations from the International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes. METHODS: The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018099935.

Charles Burstein, MD: First Director of Anesthesiology at Hospital for Special Surgery.

Charles L. Burstein was the first departmental Director and Chief of Anesthesiology at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. He joined the staff in 1937, when the hospital was still known by its original name of the Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled. In 1940, it was renamed The Hospital for Special Surgery. Burstein, an early disciple of Emery Rovenstine, accomplished much to advance the Department of Anesthesiology through academic collaborations, education, clinical specialization, and research. He laid the groundwork for the future success of a department that continues to thrive to this day in clinical and academic orthopedic anesthesia.

The training and careers of regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine fellows, 2013.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Fellowships in regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RAAPM) have grown exponentially during the past decade, both in terms of total programs and fellows trained. This survey-based study reports fellowship graduates' assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of their training and how the fellowship has affected their careers. METHODS: Graduates of North American RAAPM fellowships were asked to participate in a 16-question survey designed to describe their training and subsequent career. Academic anesthesiology department chairs were simultaneously surveyed to determine how the RAAPM components of their residency training programs are staffed and organized. RESULTS: Graduate and department chair response rates were 59% and 44%, respectively. During the past decade, significant improvements have occurred in peripheral nerve block, perineural catheter, and acute pain medicine training. Many fellowship graduates note less robust educational experiences in research and the nontechnical aspects of the subspecialty. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study should prove useful to fellowship directors as they refine the educational offerings of their programs.

Perioperative research fellowship: planning, implementation, experience.

Perioperative outcomes research has gained widespread interest and is viewed as increasingly important among different specialties, including anesthesiology. Outcomes research studies serve to help in the adjustment of risk, allocation of resources, and formulation of hypotheses to guide future research. Pursuing high-quality research projects requires familiarity with a wide range of research methods, and concepts are ideally learned in a dedicated setting. Skills associated with the use of these methods as well as with scientific publishing in general, however, are increasingly challenging to acquire. This article was intended to describe the curriculum and implementation of the Perioperative Medicine and Regional Anesthesia Research Fellowship at the Hospital for Special Surgery. We also proposed a method to evaluate the success of a research fellowship curriculum.

Thomas Linwood Bennett, MD: one of New York City's first prominent physician anesthetists.

Thomas Linwood Bennett (1868-1932) was one of New York City's first prominent physician anesthetists. He was the first dedicated anesthetist at the Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled, subsequently renamed Hospital for Special Surgery. He subsequently practiced at multiple institutions throughout New York City as one of the first physicians in the United States to dedicate his entire practice to the emerging field of anesthesia. Bennett was considered the preeminent anesthetist of his time, excelling at research, innovation, education, and clinical care.

Practice patterns related to block selection, nerve localization and risk disclosure: a survey of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify current clinical practice patterns among members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) members that relate to complications of regional anesthesia (RA). METHODS: Invitations were posted to the 3,732 ASRA members, to participate in our survey. Members were asked to report the types and numbers of blocks performed annually, preferred nerve localization techniques, and routine risk disclosure practices prior to common neuraxial (NAB) and peripheral nerve (PNB) block techniques. RESULTS: The number of respondents was 801 (response rate: 21.7%). Approximately half of the respondents perform >100 spinal and epidural blocks but <50 of each listed PNB annually. With the exception of axillary block, nerve stimulation is the overwhelmingly preferred nerve localization technique for PNB. Five hundred twenty-nine respondents (66.2%) disclose of RA primarily to allow patients to make an informed choice, while 227 (28.4%) disclose for medicolegal reasons. For NAB, the most commonly disclosed risks are headache and local pain/discomfort. Neurological complications following NAB such as permanent neuropathy and paralysis are inconsistently disclosed. For PNB, the most commonly disclosed risks are local pain/discomfort and transient neuropathy. The least commonly disclosed risks for both NAB and PNB include seizures, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, and death. With the exception of headache following spinal anesthesia (1:100) and Horner's syndrome following interscalene block (1:10), there is little consensus regarding the perceived incidence of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a 22% response rate, our survey suggests that the risks of RA most commonly disclosed to patients by ASRA members are benign while severe complications of RA are far less commonly disclosed. There is little agreement among ASRA members regarding their perceived incidence of complications following RA.

Disclosure of risks associated with regional anesthesia: a survey of academic regional anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In view of the relatively few large studies available to estimate the rates of complications following regional anesthesia, we aimed to identify and quantify the risks that academic regional anesthesiologists and regional anesthesia fellows disclose to their patients before performing central and peripheral nerve blockade. METHODS: We asked 23 North American regional anesthesia fellowship program directors to distribute a questionnaire to the regional anesthesiologists and regional anesthesia fellows at their institutions. The questionnaire was designed to capture the risks and corresponding incidences that are routinely disclosed to patients before performing the most common central and peripheral nerve block techniques. RESULTS: The total number of respondents was 79 from 12 different institutions. Fifty-eight (74%) respondents disclose risks of regional anesthesia in order to allow their patients to make an informed choice, whereas 20 (26%) disclose risks for medicolegal reasons. For central neural blockade, the most commonly disclosed risks are headache, local pain/discomfort, and infection. For peripheral nerve blockade, the most commonly disclosed risks are transient neuropathy, local pain/discomfort, and infection. For both central and peripheral nerve blockade, the risks most commonly disclosed are also those with the highest-reported incidences. CONCLUSIONS: The risks of regional anesthesia most commonly disclosed to patients by academic regional anesthesiologists and regional anesthesia fellows are benign in nature and occur frequently. Severe complications of regional anesthesia are far less commonly disclosed. The incidences of severe complications disclosed by academic regional anesthesiologists and their fellows can be inconsistent with those cited in the contemporary literature.

The training and careers of regional anesthesia fellows--1983-2002.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The education and subsequent careers of regional anesthesia fellows have not been examined but may provide insight into improving future fellowship training and/or the future of the subspecialty. METHODS: Regional anesthesia fellows educated during a 20-year period (1983-2002) were asked to complete a comprehensive survey that detailed their training, current professional setting, and use of regional anesthesia, and how they foresee the future of regional anesthesia. A separate survey of academic anesthesiology chairs assessed the role of and need for regional anesthesiologists in teaching departments. RESULTS: Twelve regional anesthesia fellowship programs in the United States and Canada provided contact information on 176 former fellows. The survey response rate from those practicing in North America was 49% (77/156). Two of the 12 responding institutions have trained 68% of regional anesthesia fellows. Of respondents, 61% are or have been in academic practice. Regional anesthesia remains an integral part of most respondents' current practice, as evidenced by significant use of regional techniques, active involvement in subspecialty societies, and participation in continuing medical education programs. Academic chairs indicate that fellowship-trained regional anesthesiologists play important roles in resident education and are in demand by academic departments. CONCLUSIONS: This report details how regional anesthesia fellows from 1983 to 2002 were trained and how they currently practice and examines their insights regarding the strengths and weaknesses of past and future regional anesthesia education.