Truncal regional nerve blocks in clinical anesthesia practice.

Regional anesthetic techniques are important components of successful multimodal analgesic strategies. When used successfully, truncal nerve blocks of the chest wall, abdomen, and, paraneuraxial nerves, in combination with other analgesic modalities, may offer similar analgesic efficacy as neuraxial techniques, which are associated with a greater risk profile. Moreover, in comparison to neuraxial techniques, truncal nerve blocks are relatively simple to perform and technically straightforward to learn. The transversus abdominus plane (TAP) block is often incorporated into the multimodal analgesia regimen for surgical patients undergoing various abdominal and gynecological procedures. Rectus sheath blocks (RSB) were originally introduced to help relax the anterior abdominal wall during surgery and as an adjunct pain therapy. With the advancement of technology and the development of ultrasound guided techniques, RSB now have a more ubiquitous role and have been shown to decrease postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Different variations of the quadratus lumborum block may provide visceral and sensory analgesic coverage. Moreover, truncal blocks, including ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, pectoralis nerve (PECS) blocks, serratus anterior, intercostal, and erector spinae plane blocks, have gained routine clinical use for various surgeries. In this review, we discuss the techniques, anatomy, indications, complications, and benefits of truncal nerve blocks commonly used in clinical practice.

Regional Nerve Blocks-Best Practice Strategies for Reduction in Complications and Comprehensive Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Understanding the etiologies of the complications associated with regional anesthesia and implementing methods to reduce their occurrence provides an opportunity to foster safer practices in the delivery of regional anesthesia. RECENT FINDINGS: Neurologic injuries following peripheral nerve block (PNB) and neuraxial blocks are rare, with most being transient. However, long-lasting and devastating sequelae can occur with regional anesthesia. Risk factors for neurologic injury following PNB include type of block, injection in the presence of deep sedation or general anesthesia, presence of existing neuropathy, mechanical trauma from the needle, pressure injury, intraneural injection, neuronal ischemia, iatrogenic injury related to surgery, and local anesthetic neurotoxicity. The present investigation discusses regional blocks, complications of regional blocks, risk factors, site-specific limitations, specific complications and how to prevent them from happening, avoiding complications in regional anesthesia, and the future of regional anesthesia.

Preoperative patient preparation in enhanced recovery pathways.

Enhanced recovery pathways are a novel approach focused on enhancing the care of surgical patients. "Prehabilitation" is the term applied to any intervention administered before surgery to reduce surgery-related morbidity, decrease the length of hospital stay, expedite the return of organ function, and facilitate the patient's return to normal life. A PubMed search was performed with the following key words: enhanced recovery, preoperative preparation, cessation of smoking and euvolemia. The results from this Pubmed search revealed that female patients may have higher levels of anxiety than male patients. Intensive smoking and alcohol cessation 6-8 weeks before elective surgery may reduce the incidence of postoperative morbidity. Preoperative exercise can be effective for reducing the postoperative complications like pulmonary complications and shortening the length of hospital stay. It is safe to allow patients to drink clear fluids up until 2 h before elective surgery (Level II evidence). Perioperative normoglycemia is the single most important factor to prevent surgical site infection. Intermittent pneumatic compression devices and low molecular weight heparin are effective in preventing postoperative thromboembolism. No advantage is gained by preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery. The goal of preoperative fluid management is for the patient to arrive in the operating room in a hydrated and euvolemic state. Mild perioperative hypothermia may promote surgical wound infection by triggering thermoregulatory vasoconstriction, which decreases subcutaneous oxygen tension.

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Use of Antithrombotics and Anticoagulants in Patients Undergoing Interventional Techniques: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Interventional pain management involves diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain. This specialty utilizes minimally invasive procedures to target therapeutics to the central nervous system and the spinal column. A subset of patients encountered in interventional pain are medicated using anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs to mitigate thrombosis risk. Since these drugs target the clotting system, bleeding risk is a consideration accompanying interventional procedures. Importantly, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs exposes underlying thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. This review summarizes the literature and provides guidelines based on best evidence for patients receiving anti-clotting therapy during interventional pain procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding an assessment of the bleeding risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antithrombotic medications. METHODS: A review of the available literature published on bleeding risk during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antithrombotic therapy was conducted. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of EMBASE and PubMed from 1966 through August 2018 and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: 1. There is good evidence for risk stratification by categorizing multiple interventional techniques into low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk. Also, their risk should be upgraded based on other risk factors.2. There is good evidence for the risk of thromboembolic events in patients who interrupt antithrombotic therapy. 3. There is good evidence supporting discontinuation of low dose aspirin for high risk and moderate risk procedures for at least 3 days, and there is moderate evidence that these may be continued for low risk or some intermediate risk procedures.4. There is good evidence that discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy with warfarin, heparin, dabigatran (Pradaxa®), argatroban (Acova®), bivalirudin (Angiomax®), lepirudin (Refludan®), desirudin (Iprivask®), hirudin, apixaban (Eliquis®), rivaroxaban (Xarelto®), edoxaban (Savaysa®, Lixiana®), Betrixaban(Bevyxxa®), fondaparinux (Arixtra®) prior to interventional techniques with individual consideration of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drugs and individual risk factors increases safety.5. There is good evidence that diagnosis of epidural hematoma is based on severe pain at the site of the injection, rapid neurological deterioration, and MRI with surgical decompression with progressive neurological dysfunction to avoid neurological sequelae.6. There is good evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high, low molecular weight heparin bridge therapy can be instituted during cessation of the anticoagulant, and the low molecular weight heparin can be discontinued 24 hours before the pain procedure.7. There is fair evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events is higher than that of epidural hematoma formation with the interruption of antiplatelet therapy preceding interventional techniques, though both risks are significant.8. There is fair evidence that multiple variables including anatomic pathology with spinal stenosis and ankylosing spondylitis; high risk procedures and moderate risk procedures combined with anatomic risk factors; bleeding observed during the procedure, and multiple attempts during the procedures increase the risk for bleeding complications and epidural hematoma.9. There is fair evidence that discontinuation of phosphodiesterase inhibitors is optional (dipyridamole [Persantine], cilostazol [Pletal]. However, there is also fair evidence to discontinue Aggrenox [dipyridamole plus aspirin]) 3 days prior to undergoing interventional techniques of moderate and high risk. 10. There is fair evidence to make shared decision making between the patient and the treating physicians with the treating physician and to consider all the appropriate risks associated with continuation or discontinuation of antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy.11. There is fair evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high antithrombotic therapy may be resumed 12 hours after the interventional procedure is performed.12. There is limited evidence that discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel [Plavix®], ticlopidine [Ticlid®], Ticagrelor [Brilinta®] and prasugrel [Effient®]) avoids complications of significant bleeding and epidural hematomas.13. There is very limited evidence supporting the continuation or discontinuation of most NSAIDs, excluding aspirin, for 1 to 2 days and some 4 to 10 days, since these are utilized for pain management without cardiac or cerebral protective effect. LIMITATIONS: The continued paucity of the literature with discordant recommendations. CONCLUSION: Based on the survey of current literature, and published clinical guidelines, recommendations for patients presenting with ongoing antithrombotic therapy prior to interventional techniques are variable, and are based on comprehensive analysis of each patient and the risk-benefit analysis of intervention. KEY WORDS: Perioperative bleeding, bleeding risk, practice patterns, anticoagulant therapy, antithrombotic therapy, interventional techniques, safety precautions, pain.

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Laparoscopic Versus Ultrasound-Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Transversus abdominis plane block may improve analgesia after colorectal surgery; however, techniques remain unstandardized and results are conflicting. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare laparoscopic and ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block with no block in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at an urban teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention included 2:2:1 randomization to laparoscopic, ultrasound-guided, or no transversus abdominis plane block. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morphine use in the first 24 hours after surgery was measured. RESULTS: The study cohort included 107 patients randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 41), ultrasound-guided (n = 45), or no transversus abdominis plane block (n = 21). Mean age was 50.4 years (SD ± 18 y), and 50 patients (47%) were men. Laparoscopic transversus abdominis plane block was superior to ultrasound-guided (p = 0.007) and no transversus abdominis plane block (p = 0.007), with median (interquartile range) total morphine used in the first 24 hours postoperatively of 17.6 mg (6.6-33.9 mg), 34.0 mg (16.4-44.4 mg), and 31.6 mg (18.4-44.4 mg). At 48 hours, laparoscopic transversus abdominis plane block remained superior to ultrasound-guided (p = 0.03) and no transversus abdominis plane block (p = 0.007) with median (interquartile range) total morphine used at 48 hours postoperatively of 26.8 mg (15.5-45.8 mg), 44.0 mg (27.6-70.0 mg), and 60.8 mg (34.8-78.8 mg). Mean hospital stay was 5.1 ± 3.1 days without any intergroup differences. Overall complications were similar between groups. LIMITATIONS: Treatment teams were not blinded and there was operator dependence of techniques and variable timing of the blocks. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic transversus abdominis plane block is superior to ultrasound-guided and no transversus abdominis plane block in achieving pain control and minimizing opioid use in the first 24 hours after colorectal surgery. A large, multicenter, randomized trial is needed to confirm our findings. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A822.

The relationship between patient risk factors and early versus late postoperative emetic symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remain common complications after elective surgery. Prophylactic antiemetic drugs are frequently administered to patients with well known risk factors for developing PONV. We designed this prospective observational study to assess the relationship between common patient risk factors for developing PONV and the occurrence of early (0-24 h) versus late (24-72 h) emetic symptoms. METHODS: One hundred thirty patients undergoing elective laparoscopic (n = 88) or plastic (n = 42) surgery were assigned a risk score for developing PONV based on the Apfel risk scoring system, which assigns one point each for female gender, nonsmoking status, history of PONV or motion sickness, and postoperative opioid use. It was assumed that all patients would receive an opioid analgesic in the postoperative period. The patients received 0, 1, 2, or 3 antiemetic drugs for prophylaxis. The occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and need for rescue antiemetics was assessed at specific time intervals from 0 to 6, 6-24, and 24-72 h after surgery. In addition, the impact of PONV on recovery of normal activities of daily living was assessed using a standardized patient questionnaire. RESULTS: One or more prophylactic antiemetics were administered to 87%, 90%, and 95% of the patients in the two, three, and four Apfel risk-factor groups, respectively. In the presence of three or four risk factors, >/=2 antiemetics were administered to 56% and 75% of the patients, respectively. Vomiting was reported in 11% and 22% of patients in the three and four risk factor groups compared with 6% in the two risk factor group at 0-6 h, and 13% and 27% (vs 0%) at 6-24 h, respectively. However, in the 24-72 h postoperative period, the incidences of emesis were low and did not differ in the three risk groups (9%, 5%, and 11%, respectively). The occurrence of moderate-to-severe nausea was increased in the higher risk groups at 0-6 h and 6-24 h (19%-28% vs 6% and 20%-30% vs 9%, respectively). However, the incidences of nausea in the 24-72 h period in the three and four risk factor groups were not different from the two-risk factor group (5% and 8% vs 6%, respectively). The need for rescue antiemetics and interference of emetic symptoms with normal activities was greater in the four risk factor group compared with the two and three risk factor groups. CONCLUSION: Despite the frequent use of multiple antiemetic drugs for prophylaxis, an Apfel risk score of three or four (vs 2) was associated with a higher incidence of emetic sequelae in the first 24 h after surgery. However, the occurrence of late (24-72 h) emetic symptoms was low and appeared to be unrelated to the patient's Apfel risk score.