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.

Selective Epidurography for the Assessment of Epidural Catheter Placement After Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Adequate pain control immediately after esophagostomy is critical to patient recovery and may be compromised by uncertainty regarding correct epidural catheter placement. The aim of the current study was to determine the role of performing an epidurogram in selective patients to assess epidural placement after esophagectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing esophagectomy in a high-volume center were retrospectively reviewed to identify those in whom an epidurogram was performed less than 24 hours after surgery. Since 2012 epidurograms have been selectively performed in patients and have demonstrated features concerning for incorrect epidural catheter placement, including difficult/complicated insertion, negative sensory test, nonreassuring intraoperative hemodyamic response, and inadequate postoperative pain control. RESULTS: Fifty-two of 192 patients (27%; 43 men; age 65 ± 11 years) who underwent esophagostomy since 2012 had an epidurogram. Epidurograms were not associated with any adverse events. In 21 patients (40%) epidurogram findings led to a direct change in patient management, prompting either removal/replacement of an incorrectly sited catheter (n = 9), partial withdrawal of a catheter associated with unilateral contrast distribution (n = 2), or by endorsing a clinical decision to modify the analgesic regimen in a patient with a correctly sited epidural catheter (n = 10). Identifying and rescuing incorrect epidural catheter placement was not associated with longer intensive care unit/hospital stay or postoperative morbidity (p > 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: We reviewed selective epidurogram use in esophagectomy patients to determine its role in "rescuing" inadequate pain control through expediting clinical decision-making. Findings confirm that in selected patients epidurography is feasible and has the potential to directly contribute to patient care.

The Second American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Evidence-Based Medicine Assessment of Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia: Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVES: In 2009 and again in 2012, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine assembled an expert panel to assess the evidence basis for ultrasound guidance as a nerve localization tool for regional anesthesia. METHODS: The 2012 panel reviewed evidence from the first advisory but focused primarily on new information that had emerged since 2009. A new section was added regarding the accuracy and reliability of ultrasound for determining needle-to-nerve proximity. Jadad scores are used to rank study quality. Grades of recommendations consistent with their level of evidence are provided. RESULTS: The panel offers recommendations based on synthesis and analysis of literature related to (1) the technical capabilities of ultrasound equipment and its operators, (2) comparison of ultrasound to other methods of nerve localization with regard to block characteristics, (3) comparison of block techniques where ultrasound is the sole nerve localization modality, and (4) major complications. Assessment of evidence strength and recommendations are made for upper- and lower-extremity, truncal, neuraxial, and pediatric blocks. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific evidence from the past 5 years has clarified and strengthened our understanding of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia as a nerve localization tool. High-level evidence supports ultrasound guidance contributing to superior characteristics with selected blocks, although absolute differences with the comparator technique are often relatively small (especially for upper-extremity blocks). The clinical meaningfulness of these differences is likely of variable importance to individual practitioners. The use of ultrasound significantly reduces the risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity as well as the incidence and intensity of hemidiaphragmatic paresis, but has no significant effect on the incidence of postoperative neurologic symptoms. WHAT'S NEW IN THIS UPDATE?: This evidence-based assessment of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia reviews findings from our 2010 publication and focuses on new meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large case series published since 2009. New to this exercise is an in-depth analysis of the accuracy and reliability of ultrasound guidance for identifying needle-to-nerve relationships. This version no longer addresses ultrasound for interventional pain medicine procedures, because the growth of that field demands separate consideration. Since our 2010 publication, new information has either supported or strengthened our original conclusions. There is no evidence that ultrasound is inferior to alternative nerve localization methods.

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.

The ASRA evidence-based medicine assessment of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia and pain medicine: Executive summary.

OBJECTIVES: The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine charged an expert panel to examine the evidence basis for ultrasound guidance as a nerve localization tool in the clinical practices of regional anesthesia and interventional pain medicine. METHODS: The panel searched, examined, and assessed the literature of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) from the past 20 years. The qualities of studies were graded using the Jadad score. Strength of evidence and recommendations were graded using an accepted rating tool. RESULTS: The panel made specific literature-based assessments concerning the relative advantages and limitations of UGRA relative to traditional nerve localization methods as they pertained to block characteristics and complications. Assessments and recommendations were made for upper and lower extremity, neuraxial, and truncal blocks and include pediatrics and interventional pain medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance improves block characteristics (particularly performance time and surrogate measures of success) that are often block specific and that may impart an efficiency advantage depending on individual practitioner circumstances. Evidence for UGRA impacting patient safety is currently limited to the demonstration of improvements in the frequency of surrogate events for serious complications.

Guidelines for regional anesthesia fellowship training.

BACKGROUND: The number of regional anesthesia fellowships has grown over the past 2 decades. There currently exist no guidelines for what constitutes ideal regional anesthesia fellowship training. METHODS: Regional anesthesia fellowship program directors and other advocates of regional anesthesia were invited to participate in a collaborative project to establish a standardized curriculum for regional anesthesia fellowships. Guidelines were created based on the existing template of Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education program requirements for residency education in anesthesiology. The resulting draft guidelines were distributed at a meeting of the program directors, who were then asked to forward all comments and relevant training material from their respective institutions to a coordinating institution. RESULTS: All received materials were reviewed, and selected components were collated into a consensus document, which was then reviewed, modified, and eventually approved by the program directors over a 2-year series of meetings. The program directors agreed to adopt the guidelines as their fellowship curriculum and to evaluate their effectiveness in 2 years' time. CONCLUSIONS: The intent of these initial guidelines is to improve the quality and consistency of regional anesthesia fellowship training. The creation process also led to an affirmation of the directors' commitment to continued dialogue for the purpose of facilitating the exchange of ideas among programs.

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.

Assessment of lower extremity nerve block: reprise of the Four P's acronym.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Successful performance of lower-extremity regional anesthesia includes sensory and/or motor block assessment of up to 4 major peripheral nerves. This brief report describes a methodology for the rapid evaluation of lower-extremity anesthesia before surgical incision. METHODS: Illustrations highlight the techniques for evaluation of sciatic, obturator, lateral femoral cutaneous, and femoral nerve anesthesia. This methodology is based on a Four P's acronym: push, pull, pinch, punt. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate assessment of lower-extremity regional anesthesia can be achieved rapidly using The Four Ps evaluation tool.