RESUMEN
There is no universally agreed set of anatomical structures that must be identified on ultrasound for the performance of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) techniques. This study aimed to produce standardized recommendations for core (minimum) structures to identify during seven basic blocks. An international consensus was sought through a modified Delphi process. A long-list of anatomical structures was refined through serial review by key opinion leaders in UGRA. All rounds were conducted remotely and anonymously to facilitate equal contribution of each participant. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for "orientation scanning" (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for the "block view" (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). Strong recommendations for inclusion were made if ≥75% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" in any round. Weak recommendations were made if >50% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" or "probably include" for all rounds (but the criterion for "strong recommendation" was never met). Thirty-six participants (94.7%) completed all rounds. 128 structures were reviewed; a "strong recommendation" is made for 35 structures on orientation scanning and 28 for the block view. A "weak recommendation" is made for 36 and 20 structures, respectively. This study provides recommendations on the core (minimum) set of anatomical structures to identify during ultrasound scanning for seven basic blocks in UGRA. They are intended to support consistent practice, empower non-experts using basic UGRA techniques, and standardize teaching and research.
Asunto(s)
Anestesia de Conducción , Anestesia de Conducción/métodos , Consenso , Humanos , Ultrasonografía , Ultrasonografía Intervencional/métodosRESUMEN
Recent recommendations describe a set of core anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA). This project aimed to generate consensus recommendations for core structures to identify during the performance of intermediate and advanced blocks. An initial longlist of structures was refined by an international panel of key opinion leaders in UGRA over a three-round Delphi process. All rounds were conducted virtually and anonymously. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for "orientation scanning" (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for "block view" (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). A "strong recommendation" was made if ≥75% of participants rated any structure as "definitely include" in any round. A "weak recommendation" was made if >50% of participants rated it as "definitely include" or "probably include" for all rounds, but the criterion for strong recommendation was never met. Structures which did not meet either criterion were excluded. Forty-one participants were invited and 40 accepted; 38 completed all three rounds. Participants considered the ultrasound scanning for 19 peripheral nerve blocks across all three rounds. Two hundred and seventy-four structures were reviewed for both orientation scanning and block view; a "strong recommendation" was made for 60 structures on orientation scanning and 44 on the block view. A "weak recommendation" was made for 107 and 62 structures, respectively. These recommendations are intended to help standardize teaching and research in UGRA and support widespread and consistent practice.
Asunto(s)
Anestesia de Conducción , Ultrasonografía Intervencional , Humanos , Ultrasonografía , Nervios Periféricos/diagnóstico por imagenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The fetus is vulnerable to maternal drug exposure. We determined associations of exposure to spinal, epidural, or general anesthesia on neonatal and childhood development outcomes during the first 1000 days of life. METHODS: Population-based study of all singleton, cesarean livebirths of 24+0 to 43+6 weeks gestation between January 2007 and December 2016 in Scotland, stratified by urgency with follow-up to age 2 years. Models were adjusted for: maternal age, weight, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, smoking, drug-use, induction, parity, previous cesarean or abortion, pre-eclampsia, gestation, birth weight, and sex. RESULTS: 140 866 mothers underwent cesarean section (41.2% (57,971/140,866) elective, 58.8% (82,895/140,866) emergency) with general anesthesia used in 3.2% (1877/57,971) elective and 9.8% (8158/82,895) of emergency cases. In elective cases, general anesthesia versus spinal was associated with: neonatal resuscitation (crude event rate 16.2% vs 1.9% (adjusted RR 8.20, 95% CI 7.20 to 9.33), Apgar <7 at 5 min (4.6% vs 0.4% (adjRR 11.44, 95% CI 8.88 to 14.75)), and neonatal admission (8.6% vs 4.9% (adjRR 1.65, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.94)). Associations were similar in emergencies; resuscitation (32.2% vs 12.3% (adjRR 2.40, 95% CI 2.30 to 2.50)), Apgar <7 (12.6% vs 2.8% (adjRR 3.87, 95% CI 3.56 to 4.20), and admission (31.6% vs 19.9% (adjRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.25). There was a weak association between general anesthesia in emergency cases and having ≥1 concern noted in developmental assessment at 2 years (21.0% vs 16.5% (adjRR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16)). CONCLUSIONS: General anesthesia for cesarean section, irrespective of urgency, is associated with neonatal resuscitation, low Apgar, and neonatal unit admission. Associations were strongest in non-urgent cases and at term. Further evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted.
Asunto(s)
Cesárea , Resucitación , Anestesia General/efectos adversos , Cesárea/efectos adversos , Preescolar , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Edad Gestacional , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Embarazo , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: An arteriovenous fistula is the optimal form of vascular access in patients with end-stage renal failure requiring haemodialysis. Unfortunately, approximately one-third of fistulae fail at an early stage. Different anaesthetic techniques can influence factors associated with fistula success, such as intraoperative blood flow and venous diameter. A regional anaesthetic brachial plexus block results in vasodilatation and improved short- and long-term fistula flow compared to the infiltration of local anaesthetic alone. This, however, has not yet been shown in a large trial to influence long-term fistula patency, the ultimate clinical measure of success.The aim of this study is to compare whether a regional anaesthetic block, compared to local anaesthetic infiltration, can improve long-term fistula patency. METHODS: This study is an observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Patients scheduled to undergo creation of either brachial or radial arteriovenous fistulae will receive a study information sheet, and consent will be obtained in keeping with the Declaration of Helsinki. Patients will be randomised to receive either: (i) an ultrasound guided brachial plexus block using lignocaine with adrenaline and levobupivicaine, or (ii) local anaesthetic infiltration with lignocaine and levobupivicaine.A total of 126 patients will be recruited. The primary outcome is fistula primary patency at three months. Secondary outcomes include primary patency at 1 and 12 months, secondary patency and fistula flow at 1, 3 and 12 months, flow on first haemodialysis, procedural pain, patient satisfaction, change in cephalic vein diameter pre- and post-anaesthetic, change in radial or brachial artery flow pre- and post-anaesthetic, alteration of the surgical plan after anaesthesia as guided by vascular mapping with ultrasound, and fistula infection requiring antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: No large randomised controlled trial has examined the influence of brachial plexus block compared with local anaesthetic infiltration on the long-term patency of arteriovenous fistulae. If the performance of brachial plexus block increases fistulae patency, this will have significant clinical and financial benefits as the number of patients able to commence haemodialysis when planned should increase, and the number of "redo" or revision procedures should be reduced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 5 (reference no. 12/WS/0199) and is registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov database (reference no. NCT01706354).