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.

Comparison of equipotent doses of intrathecal hyperbaric prilocaine 2% and hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% for elective caesarean section: A prospective, randomised, controlled, two-centre clinical trial.

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.

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall blocks.

BACKGROUND: There is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement. RESULTS: Sixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.