Randomized control trial of ultrasound-guided erector spinae block versus shoulder periarticular anesthetic infiltration for pain control after arthroscopic shoulder surgery: Study protocol clinical trial (SPIRIT compliant).

INTRODUCTION: Moderate to severe postoperative pain and associated opioid use may interfere with patients' well-being and course of recovery. Regional anesthetic techniques provide an opportunity for opioid sparing and improved patient outcomes. A new regional technique called the erector spinae plane (ESP) block has the potential to provide effective analgesia after shoulder arthroscopy with minimal risks and decreased opioid consumption. Our primary objective is to determine whether, in patients who undergo arthroscopic shoulder surgery, a preoperative ESP block reduces pain scores as compared to periarticular infiltration at the end of surgery. Additionally, we will also examine other factors such as opioid consumption, sensory block, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and persistent pain. METHODS: This is a 2-arm, single-center, parallel-design, double-blind randomized controlled trial of 60 patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Eligible patients will be recruited in the preoperative clinic. Using a computer-generated randomization, with a 1:1 allocation ratio, patients will be randomized to either the ESP or periarticular infiltration group. Patients will be followed in hospital in the postanesthesia care unit, at 24 hours, and at 1 month. The study with be analyzed as intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION: This study will inform an evidence-based choice in recommending ESP block for shoulder arthroscopy, as well as providing safety data. The merits of the study include its double dummy blinding to minimize observer bias, and its assessment of patient important outcomes, including pain scores, opioid consumption, and patient satisfaction. This study will also help provide an estimate of the incidence of side effects and complications of the ESP block. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03691922; Recruited Date of registration: October 2, 2018.

The development of vaccination perspectives among chiropractic, naturopathic and medical students: a case study of professional enculturation.

An important influence on parents' decisions about pediatric vaccination (children under 6 years of age) is the attitude of their health care providers, including complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers. Very limited qualitative research exists, however, on how attitudes towards vaccination develop among healthcare professionals in-training. We explored perspective development among three groups of students: medical, chiropractic, and naturopathic. We conducted focus group sessions with participants from each year of study at three different healthcare training programs in Ontario, Canada. Semi-structured and open-ended questions were used to elicit dynamic interaction among participants and explore how they constructed their attitudes toward vaccination at the beginning and part way through their professional training. Analyses of verbatim transcripts of audiotaped interviews were conducted both inductively and deductively using questions structured by existing literature on learning, professional socialization and interprofessional relations. We found five major themes and each theme was illustrated with representative quotes. Numerous unexpected insights emerged within these themes, including students' general open-mindedness towards pediatric vaccination at the beginning of their training; the powerful influence of both formal education and informal socialization; uncritical acceptance of the vaccination views of senior or respected professionals; students' preference for multiple perspectives rather than one-sided, didactic instruction; the absence of explicit socio-cultural tensions among professions; and how divergences among professional students' perspectives result from differing emphases with respect to lifestyle, individual choice, public health and epidemiological factors-rather than disagreement concerning the biomedical evidence. This last finding implies that their different perspectives on pediatric vaccination may be complementary rather than irreconcilable. Our findings should be considered by developers of professional and interprofessional educational curricula and public health officials formulating policy on pediatric vaccination.