RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The RADICAL trial has been funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation (RFD) for low back pain. Recommendations have been published which aim to standardise selection of patients and RFD technique. However, it is important to ensure these recommendations are acceptable to clinicians within the context of the trial. The aim of this work was to develop standardised criteria for the trial entry and RFD technique for implementation within the RADICAL trial. METHODS: Fourteen pain clinicians completed a survey, which involved reviewing the current recommendations and indicating whether they disagreed with any of the recommendations and if so why. Responses were collated and presented at a half-day workshop with 14 attendees. During the workshop, the National Low Back and Radicular Pain Pathway (NLBRPP) guidelines for patient selection and an article by Eldabe and colleagues presenting recommendations on the RFD technique were reviewed. Attendees discussed whether each component of the recommendations should be mandatory, mandatory with alteration or clarification or optional within the RADICAL trial. RESULTS: Attendees agreed during the workshop that 5 of the 10 criteria for patient selection described in the NLBRPP should be mandatory within the RADICAL trial. Three were agreed as mandatory criteria but required further clarification, one of which involved defining a positive response to a diagnostic medial branch block as ⩾60% pain relief. Two criteria had optional components. After reviewing the recommendations on the RFD technique from Eldabe and colleagues, seven components were agreed as mandatory, three were mandatory with alterations and three were optional. CONCLUSION: When evaluating complex interventions, such as RFD, it is important to ensure agreement and clarity on the clinical protocol, so that the intervention can be reproduced, if found to be effective.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: This study assessed difficult airway management, training and equipment availability among Canadian anesthesiologists. METHODS: A postal survey of active members of the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society was conducted in 2000. Respondents chose an induction condition and intubation technique for each of ten difficult airway scenarios. Availability of airway devices in their workplaces was assessed. Chi square analyses were used to compare groups. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eight hundred and thirty-three of 1702 (49%) surveys were returned. Staff comprised 88%, and residents 12%. Fifty-five percent had attended a difficult airway workshop within five years and 30% received mannequin airway training during residency. Direct laryngoscopy (48%) or fibreoptic bronchoscopy (34%) were the preferred techniques for intubation. For laryngeal, subglottic and unstable cervical spine scenarios, awake intubation with fibreoptic bronchoscope was most widely chosen. Asleep intubation with direct laryngoscopy was most commonly selected for trauma scenarios. Availability of difficult airway equipment varied between regions and types of hospital. Cricothyroidotomy equipment and difficult airway carts were not universally available. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey assessed current preferences, training and equipment availability for the difficult airway amongst Canadian anesthesiologists. Direct laryngoscopy and fibreoptic bronchoscopy were the preferred technique for intubation despite widespread availability of newer airway equipment. Lack of certain essential airway equipment and difficult airway training should be addressed.