Retinal artery occlusion after ophthalmic surgery under regional anaesthesia: A narrative review.

Two recent cases of central retinal artery occlusion under otherwise uncomplicated sub-Tenon's block that resulted in significant visual loss after cataract surgery prompted us to undertake a literature review of such cases. We identified 97 cases of retinal artery occlusion after ophthalmic surgery under regional anaesthesia that had no immediate signs of block-related complications. These occurred after various intraocular (87%) and extraocular (13%) operations, across a wide range of ages (19-89 years) on patients with (59%) or without (39%) known risk factors. The anaesthetic techniques included 40 retrobulbar blocks, 36 peribulbar blocks, 19 sub-Tenon's blocks, one topical anaesthetic and one unspecified local anaesthetic. Different strengths of lidocaine, bupivacaine, mepivacaine and ropivacaine, either alone or in various combinations, were used. The details of the anaesthetic techniques were often incomplete in the reports, which made comparison and analysis difficult. Only nine cases had their cause (optic nerve sheath injury) identified, while the mechanism of injury was unclear in the remaining patients. Various mechanisms were postulated; however, the cause was likely to be multifactorial due to patient, surgical and anaesthetic risk factors, especially in those with compromised retinal circulation. As there were no definite risk factors identified, no specific recommendations could be made to avoid this devastating outcome. We have provided rationales for some general considerations, which may reduce this risk, and propose anaesthetic options for ophthalmic surgery on the fellow eye if required, based both on our literature review and our personal experience.

Peripheral Regional Anesthetic Techniques in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate postoperative pain outcomes and adverse events after peripheral regional anesthesia (PRA) compared to no regional anesthesia (RA), placebo, or neuraxial anesthesia in children and adults undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis with an assessment of the risk of bias (Cochrane RoB 1) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). SETTING: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children undergoing heart surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Any kind of PRA compared to no RA or placebo or neuraxial anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 33 RCTs (2,044 patients) were included-24 of these had a high risk of bias, and 28 were performed in adults. Compared to no RA, PRA may reduce pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery (mean difference [MD] -0.81 points, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.10; I2 = 92%; very low certainty evidence). Peripheral regional anesthesia, compared to placebo, may reduce pain intensity at rest (MD -1.36 points, 95% CI -1.59 to -1.13; I2 = 54%; very low certainty evidence) and during movement (MD -1.00 points, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.67; I² = 72%; very low certainty evidence) 24 hours after surgery. No data after pediatric cardiac surgery could be meta-analyzed due to the low number of included trials. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no RA or placebo, PRA may reduce pain intensity at rest and during movement. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously because the certainty of evidence is only very low.

Fascial plane blocks in children-Scientifically supported or not?

Since the introduction of Fascial Plane Blocks in 2007 there has been an enormous interest and application of Fascial Plane Blocks, evidenced by substantially more than 1000 PubMed items. Despite this gigantic number of publications, also including randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses in children, there is still no clear-cut insight into how much of the purported effect is in fact due to the blockade of nerve structures and how much is merely adding the well-known analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of the plasma levels of local anesthetics that are achieved with these techniques. Furthermore, Fascial Plane Blocks appear useful only if compared to conventional multi-modal analgesia (no block or placebo) and Fascial Plane Blocks lack the potency to provide surgical anesthesia on their own and appear only to be of value when used for minor-moderate surgery. Despite the huge literature, there has so far not emerged any clinical situations where Fascial Plane Blocks have definitively been shown to be the block of choice, being decisively more effective than other established regional blocks. Lastly, Fascial Plane Blocks may appear as virtually free of complications, but case reports are emerging that point to a real risk for causing local anesthetic systemic toxicity when using Fascial Plane Blocks. This text aims to synthesize the current knowledge base regarding the Fascial Plane Blocks that are relevant to use in the pediatric context. In summary, there does currently not exist any convincing scientific evidence for the continued support for the use of Fascial Plane Blocks in children, except for the rectus sheath block and possibly also the transmuscular quadratus lumborum block.

Incidents relating to paediatric regional anaesthesia in the first 8000 cases reported to webAIRS.

Regional anaesthesia is an essential tool in the armamentarium for paediatric anaesthesia. While largely safe and effective, a range of serious yet preventable adverse events can occur. Incidence and risk factors have been described, but few detailed case series exist relating to paediatric regional anaesthesia. Across Australia and New Zealand, a web-based anaesthesia incident reporting system enables voluntary reporting of detailed anaesthesia-related events in adults and children. From this database, all reports involving paediatric regional anaesthesia (age less than 17 years) were retrieved. Perioperative events and their outcomes were reviewed and analysed. When offered, the reported contributing or alleviating factors relating to the case and its management were noted. This paper provides a summary of these reports alongside an evidence review to support safe practice. Of 8000 reported incidents, 26 related to paediatric regional anaesthesia were identified. There were no deaths or reports of permanent harm. Nine reports of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity were included, seven equipment and technical issues, six errors in which regional anaesthesia made an indirect contribution and four logistical and communication issues. Most incidents involved single-shot techniques or a neuraxial approach. Common themes included variable local anaesthetic dosing, cognitive overload, inadequate preparation and communication breakdown. Neonates, infants and medically complex children were disproportionately represented, highlighting their inherent risk profile. A range of preventable incidents are reported relating to patient, systems and human factors, demonstrating several areas for improvement. Risk stratification, application of existing dosing and administration guidelines, and effective teamwork and communication are encouraged to ensure safe regional anaesthesia in the paediatric population.

Comparison of general and regional anesthesia on short-term complications in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A retrospective study using national health insurance service-national sample cohort.

This retrospective study compared the mortality and short-term complications according to the choice of general anesthesia or regional anesthesia in patients who underwent a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We searched the Korean National Health Insurance Service National Sample Cohort database to analyze data from patients who received a TKA between January 2002 and December 2015. Before comparing the general and the regional anesthesia groups, the bias was reduced by propensity score matching. After matching, the mortality and complications occurring within 30 days after a TKA were compared between the 2 groups. In the database, 6491 primary TKA cases were identified. Nine hundred forty-three patients (14.5%) had a TKA performed under general anesthesia, and 5548 (85.5%) had a TKA performed under regional anesthesia. After propensity score matching, the data of 1886 patients were analyzed, with 943 patients in each group. There was no significant difference in mortality (0.32% vs 0.00%), transfusion rate (84.52% vs 84.73%, P = .8989), and length of hospital stay (50 vs 53, P = .5391) between the general and regional anesthesia groups. Most of the complications were not significantly different, but the major complications, including myocardial infarction (1.70% vs 0.64%, P = .0414) and acute renal failure (0.85% vs 0.11%, P = .0391), were higher in the general anesthesia group than in the regional anesthesia group. Also, admission to the intensive care unit (8.48% vs 2.33%, P < .0001) and total cost (₩8067, 400 vs ₩7487, 940, P = .0002) were higher in the general anesthesia group than in the regional anesthesia group. Our study found that regional anesthesia for TKA is associated with a decrease in major complications, including myocardial infarction and acute renal failure, and medical costs.

Regional anesthesia techniques for cardiac surgery: where are we?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Inadequate pain relief after cardiac surgery results in decreased patient experience and satisfaction, increased opioid consumption with its associated adverse consequences, and reduced efficiency metrics. To mitigate this, regional analgesic techniques are an increasingly important part of the perioperative cardiac anesthesia care plan. The purpose of this review is to compare current regional anesthesia techniques, and the relative evidence supporting their efficacy and safety in cardiac surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous novel plane blocks have been developed in recent years, with evidence of improved pain control after cardiac surgery. SUMMARY: The current data supports the use of a variety of different regional anesthesia techniques to reduce acute pain after cardiac surgery. However, future randomized trials are needed to quantify and compare the efficacy and safety of different regional techniques for pain control after cardiac surgery.

[Rebound pain-From definition to treatment]. / "Rebound pain" ­ von der Definition bis zur Therapie.

BACKGROUND: Rebound pain as a side effect of regional anaesthesia is an excessive sensation of pain after the effect of local anaesthesia has subsided. This sensation goes well beyond the normal wound pain following a surgical intervention. This phenomenon has entered focus of research in the past 10 years now, but the specific causes are so far unclear and there are still no targeted treatment recommendations. OBJECTIVE: This review article is intended to give the readership an overview of the current state of research about rebound pain. The theories of pathophysiology are presented and prophylaxis as well as treatment strategies are explained. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For this review article, the publications about rebound pain that appeared from 2005 up to May 2021 in PubMed were reviewed and the authors' definitions of rebound pain as well as the assumptions on pathophysiology and treatment recommendations were summarized. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 22 original papers from the years 2005-2021 were evaluated regarding the differences between the definitions of rebound pain, the assumption of its occurrence as well as possible treatment options. It turns out that there is no uniform definition by the professional societies, the pathophysiology has not yet been clearly identified and no clear recommendations for prophylaxis or treatment can be given to date; however, early administration of pain medication (e.g. NSAIDs) before the end of the nerve block has proven to be helpful. Likewise, dexamethasone as an adjuvant to regional anaesthesia shows positive effects regarding the occurrence of rebound pain. In any case, it makes sense to provide patients with comprehensive information about this special side effect of regional anaesthesia so that those affected can correctly classify the excessive pain reaction. Targeted studies to avoid severe pain after regional anaesthesia, e.g. through the addition of adjuvants, are necessary in order to keep side effects as low as possible and thereby improve patient comfort and the acceptance of regional anaesthesia.

A not so sweet scenario: impact of perioperative glucose control on regional anesthetic techniques for orthopedic surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes and hyperglycemia are well established risk factors for complications associated with common orthopedic surgeries. In some practice settings, these conditions are also viewed as contraindications to regional nerve catheters. In this article, we aim to present our approach to offering the benefits of this modality in a safe manner for patients with diabetes and even some with preexisting, localized infections. RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence suggests that reduction in opioids and avoidance of general anesthesia can be particularly beneficial for patients with diabetes and high blood sugar, who often suffer from comorbid conditions such as obesity and obstructive sleep apnea. On our high volume, high acuity acute pain service, we take a selective approach to nerve catheter placement in this population and even some who already have localized infections. In our experience, with careful monitoring and risk mitigation strategies these patients have improved pain control and an exceedingly low rate of complications associated with nerve catheter use. SUMMARY: Based on our experience and reading of the literature, we advocate for a liberalized approach to use of continuous regional anesthesia for diabetic patients having for orthopedic surgery. A set of consensus guidelines tailored to institutions' resources and monitoring capabilities can be a useful tool for standardizing care. It may also increase access to the clinical benefits of this modality in a population particularly vulnerable to opioid related adverse effects.

Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and in the postoperative period.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no intervention given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 April 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of studies and conference abstracts, and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Our primary outcomes are intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Data entry was checked. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-four studies (involving 10,990 women) met our inclusion criteria. Sixty-nine studies, involving 8928 women, contributed data. Most studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Many studies were small with unclear risk of bias and sometimes few events. The overall certainty of the evidence assessed using GRADE was moderate to very low. 5-HT3 antagonists: We found intraoperative nausea may be reduced by 5-HT3 antagonists (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.71, 12 studies, 1419 women, low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in intraoperative vomiting but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73, 11 studies, 1414 women, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in postoperative nausea (aRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.54, 10 studies, 1340 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and these drugs may show a reduction in postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69, 10 studies, 1450 women, low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists: We found dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative nausea but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52, 15 studies, 1180 women, very low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60, 12 studies, 942 women, low-certainty evidence) and postoperative nausea (aRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79, 7 studies, 601 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if dopamine antagonists reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.92, 9 studies, 860 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids (steroids): We are uncertain if intraoperative nausea is reduced by corticosteroids (aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence) similarly for intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73, 6 studies, 733 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.95, 7 studies, 793 women, low-certainty evidence). Antihistamines: Antihistamines may have little to no effect on intraoperative nausea (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.11, 1 study, 149 women, very low-certainty evidence) or intraoperative vomiting (no events in the one study of 149 women). Antihistamines may reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64, 4 studies, 514 women, low-certainty evidence), however, we are uncertain whether antihistamines reduce postoperative vomiting (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.81, 3 studies, 333 women, very low-certainty evidence). Anticholinergics: Anticholinergics may reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87, 4 studies, 453 women, low-certainty evidence) but may have little to no effect on intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.54, 4 studies; 453 women, very low-certainty evidence). No studies looked at anticholinergics in postoperative nausea, but they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 1 study, 161 women, low-certainty evidence). Sedatives: We found that sedatives probably reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether sedatives reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, 2 studies, 145 women, very low-certainty evidence) and they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, 2 studies, 145 women, low-certainty evidence). Opioid antagonists: There were no studies assessing intraoperative nausea or vomiting. Opioid antagonists may result in little or no difference to the number of women having postoperative nausea (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.45, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 1.25, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.43, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence). Acupressure: It is uncertain whether acupressure/acupuncture reduces intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 9 studies, 1221 women, very low-certainty evidence). Acupressure may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.80, 9 studies, 1221 women, low-certainty evidence) but it is uncertain whether it reduces postoperative nausea (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence). Ginger: It is uncertain whether ginger makes any difference to the number of women having intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.21, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.00, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), postoperative nausea (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.77, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence) and postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.65, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence). Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes including adverse effects or women's views. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, corticosteroids, sedatives and acupressure probably or possibly have efficacy in reducing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. However the certainty of evidence varied widely and was generally low. Future research is needed to assess side effects of treatment, women's views and to compare the efficacy of combinations of different medications.

The effect of wide-awake anesthesia, intravenous regional anesthesia, and infraclavicular brachial plexus block on cost and clinical scores of patients undergoing hand surgery.

The aim of our study was to compare the clinical results and costs of wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT), intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA), and infraclavicular brachial plexus block (IC-BPB). The patients were divided into WALANT, IVRA, IC-BPB groups, each with 50 patients. Demographic information, induction time, use of sedation, number of patients who were converted to general anesthesia, time in postanesthesia care unit (PACU), amount of bleeding during surgery, presence of tourniquet pain, hand motor function during surgery, time to onset of postanesthesia pain, discharge time, complications, and anesthesia costs were compared. Sedation was given to 12 IC-BPB patients, 9 IVRA patients and 5 WALANT patients. Of these patients, 6 undergoing IC-BPB, 5 undergoing IVRA and 4 undergoing WALANT were converted to general anesthesia (p = 0.80). PACU time and anesthesia costs were the least in the WALANT group, followed by the IVRA group (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). Intraoperative active voluntary movements were best preserved in the WALANT group; however, bleeding was highest in the WALANT group (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). Tourniquet pain was the higher in the IVRA groups, while postoperative pain in the surgical area developed the fastest in this same group (p = 0.029, p < 0.001). Time to discharge was similar in WALANT and IVRA groups, and the longest in the IC-BPB (p < 0.001) group. There was no difference among the groups in terms of patient satisfaction (p = 0.085, p = 0.242 for the first and second survey question). In the current study, WALANT appears to be a suitable alternative to IVRA and IC-BPB methods, with better preservation of active intraoperative movement, lower cost, and shorter time spent in PACU at the expense of higher bleeding.

American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity checklist: 2020 version.

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) periodically updates its practice advisories and associated cognitive aids. The 2020 version of the ASRA Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity checklist was created in response to user feedback, simulation studies and advances in medical knowledge. This report presents the 2020 version and discusses the rationale for its update.

Influence of Anesthetic Techniques on Perioperative Outcomes after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of anesthetic techniques on perioperative outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a Chinese population. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in patients after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA at our single center. Patients were classified into general anesthesia (GA), regional anesthesia (RA), and local anesthesia (LA) groups. The primary outcomes (30-day mortality and morbidity) and secondary outcomes [procedure time, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and length of hospital stay (LOS)] were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: From January 2006 to December 2015, 486 consecutive patients underwent elective EVAR at our center. GA was used in 155 patients (31.9%), RA in 56 (11.5%), and LA in 275 (56.6%). The GA patients had fewer respiratory comorbidities, shorter and more angulated proximal necks, and more concomitant iliac aneurysms. LA during EVAR was significantly associated with a shorter procedure time (GA, P < 0.001; RA, P < 0.001) and shorter LOS (GA, P = 0.002; RA, P = 0.001), but a higher MAP (GA, P < 0.001; RA, P < 0.001) compared with GA and RA. LA was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiac (odds ratio (OR) 4.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-15.04), pulmonary (OR 5.37, 95% CI 1.58-18.23), and systemic complications (OR 4.15, 95% CI 1.85-9.33) compared with GA. RA was also associated with a decreased risk of systemic complications (OR 4.74, 95% CI 1.19-18.92) compared with GA. There was no difference in the 30-day mortality, neurologic complications, renal complications, and intraoperative extra procedures among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthetic techniques for EVAR have no influence on the 30-day mortality. LA for EVAR appears to be beneficial concerning the procedure time, LOS, and 30-day systemic complications for patients after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA in the Chinese population.

Anesthetic considerations in transcarotid artery revascularization.

Transcarotid artery revascularization is a relatively new technology made available to vascular interventionalists within the last several years for patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, the intraoperative techniques and perioperative management of these patients continues to evolve as more experience is gained. Herein, we consider some important principles of anesthesia for patients undergoing this procedure.

Variation in pediatric local anesthetic dosing for peripheral nerve blocks: an analysis from the Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network (PRAN).

BACKGROUND: Variation of local anesthetic dosing has been reported for adult peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) and infant caudal blocks. As higher doses of local anesthetics (LA) are potentially associated with increased risk of complications (eg, local anesthetic systemic toxicity), it is important to understand the source of LA dose variation. Using the Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network (PRAN) database, we aimed to determine if variation in dosing exists in pediatric single-injection PNBs, and what factors influence that variation.The primary aim of this study was to determine the factors associated with dosing for the 10 most commonly performed PNBs, with the secondary aim of exploring possible factors for variation such as number of blocks performed versus geographic location. METHODS: The PRAN database was used to determine the 10 most common pediatric PNBs, excluding neuraxial regional anesthetics. The 10 most common pediatric PNBs in the PRAN database were analyzed for variation of LA dose and causes for variation. RESULTS: In a cohort of 34 514 children receiving PNBs, the mean age was 10.38 (+/-5.23) years, average weight was 44.88 (+/-26.66) kg and 61.8% were men. The mean bupivacaine equivalent (BE) dose was 0.86 (+/-0.5) mg kg-1 and ropivacaine was used in 65.4% of blocks. Dose decreases with age (estimate -0.016 (-0.017, -0.015; p<0.001)). In all blocks for all age groups, the range of doses that make up the central 80% of all doses exceeds the mean BE dose for the block. Variation is not related to the number blocks performed at an institution (p=0.33 (CI -0.42 to 0.15)). The dose administered for a PNB is driven in order of impact by the institution where the block was performed (Cohen's ƒ=0.45), then by weight (0.31), type of block (0.27), LA used (0.15) and age (0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation in dosing exists in all age groups and in all block types. The most impactful driver of local anesthetic dose is the institution where the block was performed, indicating the dosing of a potentially lethal drug is more based on local culture than on evidence.

[Recommendations for local-regional anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Recomendações para realização de anestesia loco­regional durante a pandemia de COVID­19.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many questions have come up regarding safe anesthesia management of patients with the disease. Regional anesthesia, whether peripheral nerve or neuraxial, is a safe alternative for managing patients with COVID-19, by choosing modalities that mitigate pulmonary function involvement. Adopting regional anesthesia mitigates adverse effects in the postoperative period and provides safety to pati ents and teams, as long as there is compliance with individual protection and interpersonal transmission care measures. Respecting contra-indications and judicial use of safety techniques and norms are essential. The present manuscript aims to review the evidence available on regional anesthesia for patients with COVID-19 and offer practical recommendations for safe and efficient performance.

Association of Anesthesia Type with Outcomes after Outpatient Brachiocephalic Arteriovenous Fistula Creation.

BACKGROUND: Brachiocephalic arteriovenous fistulas (BCFs) are commonly placed in outpatient settings. The impact of general anesthesia (GA), regional anesthesia (RA), or local anesthesia (LA) on perioperative recovery and fistula maturation/patency after outpatient BCF creations is unknown. We evaluated whether outcomes of outpatient BCF creations vary based on anesthesia modality. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (2011-2018) national database was queried for outpatient BCF creations. Anesthesia modalities included GA, RA, and LA. Perioperative, 3-month, and 1-year outcomes were compared between GA versus RA/LA anesthesia types. RESULTS: Among 3,527 outpatient BCF creations, anesthesia types were GA in 1,043 (29.6%), RA in 1,150 (32.6%), and LA in 1,334 (37.8%). Patients receiving GA were more often younger, obese, Medicaid recipients, without coronary artery disease, and treated in non-office-based settings (P < 0.05 for all). GA compared with RA/LA cohorts were more often admitted postoperatively (5.3% vs. 2.4%, P < 0.001) but had similar rates of thirty-day mortality (0.9 vs. 0.6%, P = 0.39). 3-month access utilization for hemodialysis was lower in GA than in RA/LA cohorts (12.6% vs. 23.6%, P < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that GA and RA/LA cohorts had similar 1-year primary access occlusion-free survival (43.6% vs. 47.1%, P = 0.24) and endovascular/open reintervention-free survival (57.2% vs. 57.6%, P = 0.98). On multivariable analysis, GA compared with RA/LA use was independently associated with increased postoperative admission (odds ratio [OR]: 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-2.67, P = 0.02) and decreased 3-month access utilization (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.25-0.61, P < 0.001) but had similar 1-year access occlusion (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.9-1.32, P = 0.36) and reintervention (HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.26, P = 0.88). On subgroup analysis of the RA/LA cohort, RA compared with LA was associated with increased 3-month access utilization (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.01-2.5; P = 0.04) and 1-year access reintervention (HR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.12-1.89), but had similar 1-year access occlusion (HR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.95-1.51, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with RA/LA use, GA use in patients undergoing outpatient BCF creations was associated with increased hospital admissions, decreased access utilization at 3 months, and similar 1-year access occlusion and reintervention. RA/LA is preferable to expedite recovery and access utilization.

Recommendations for local-regional anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic / Recomendações para realização de anestesia loco-regional durante a pandemia de COVID-19

Abstract Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many questions have come up regarding safe anesthesia management of patients with the disease. Regional anesthesia, whether peripheral nerve or neuraxial, is a safe alternative for managing patients with COVID-19, by choosing modalities that mitigate pulmonary function involvement. Adopting regional anesthesia mitigates adverse effects in the post-operative period and provides safety to patients and teams, as long as there is compliance with individual protection and interpersonal transmission care measures. Respecting contra-indications and judicial use of safety techniques and norms are essential. The present manuscript aims to review the evidence available on regional anesthesia for patients with COVID-19 and offer practical recommendations for safe and efficient performance.

Resumo Desde o início da pandemia de COVID-19, muitas questões surgiram referentes à segurança do manejo anestésico de pacientes acometidos pela doença. A anestesia regional, seja esta periférica ou neuroaxial, é alternativa segura no manejo do paciente COVID-19, desde que o emprego de modalidades que minimizam o comprometimento da função pulmonar seja escolhido. A adoção dessa técnica anestésica minimiza os efeitos adversos no pós-operatório e oferece segurança para o paciente e equipe, desde que sejam respeitados os cuidados com proteção individual e de contágio interpessoal. Respeito às contraindicações e emprego criterioso das técnicas e normas de segurança são fundamentais. Este manuscrito tem por objetivo revisar as evidências disponíveis sobre anestesia regional em pacientes com COVID-19 e oferecer recomendações práticas para sua realização segura e eficiente.

Network meta-analysis of urinary retention and mortality after Lichtenstein repair of inguinal hernia under local, regional or general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Urinary retention and mortality after open repair of inguinal hernia may depend on the type of anaesthesia. The aim of this study was to investigate possible differences in urinary retention and mortality in adults after Lichtenstein repair under different types of anaesthesia. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in the Cochrane, PubMed and Embase databases, with the last search on 1 August 2018. Eligible studies included adult patients having elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair by the Lichtenstein technique under local, regional or general anaesthesia. Outcomes were urinary retention and mortality, which were compared between the three types of anaesthesia using meta-analyses and a network meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 53 studies covering 11 683 patients were included. Crude rates of urinary retention were 0·1 (95 per cent c.i. 0 to 0·2) per cent for local anaesthesia, 8·6 (6·6 to 10·5) per cent for regional anaesthesia and 1·4 (0·6 to 2·2) per cent for general anaesthesia. No death related to the type of anaesthesia was reported. The network meta-analysis showed a higher risk of urinary retention after both regional (odds ratio (OR) 15·73, 95 per cent c.i. 5·85 to 42·32; P < 0·001) and general (OR 4·07, 1·07 to 15·48; P = 0·040) anaesthesia compared with local anaesthesia, and a higher risk after regional compared with general anaesthesia (OR 3·87, 1·10 to 13·60; P = 0·035). Meta-analyses showed a higher risk of urinary retention after regional compared with local anaesthesia (P < 0·001), but no difference between general and local anaesthesia (P = 0·08). CONCLUSION: Local or general anaesthesia had significantly lower risks of urinary retention than regional anaesthesia. Differences in mortality could not be assessed as there were no deaths after elective Lichtenstein repair. Registration number: CRD42018087115 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero).

ANTECEDENTES: La retención de orina y la mortalidad tras la reparación abierta de las hernias inguinales puede depender del tipo de anestesia. El objetivo de este estudio fue investigar posibles diferencias en la retención de orina y mortalidad en adultos tras reparación de Lichtenstein bajo diferentes métodos anestésicos. MÉTODOS: Se efectuaron búsquedas sistemáticas en las bases de datos Cochrane, PubMed y Embase con la última revisión el 1 de agosto de 2018. Los estudios elegibles incluyeron pacientes adultos sometidos a reparación electiva de hernia inguinal unilateral mediante la técnica de Lichtenstein bajo anestesia local, regional o general. Las variables de resultados fueron la retención de orina y la mortalidad, comparándose los tres tipos de anestesia con metaanálisis y un metaanálisis en red. RESULTADOS: En total se incluyeron 53 estudios con un total de 11.683 pacientes. Las tasas crudas de retención de orina fueron del 0,1% (i.c. del 95% 0,0-0,2%) para la anestesia local, del 8,6% (i.c. del 95% 6,6-10,5%) para la anestesia regional y del 1,4% (i.c. del 95% 0,6-2,2%) para la anestesia general. No se observó mortalidad relacionada con el tipo de anestesia. El metaanálisis en red mostró un riesgo más elevado de retención de orina tras la anestesia regional (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 15,73 (i.c. del 95% 5,85-42,32), P < 0,001) y anestesia general (OR 4,07 (i.c. del 95% 1,07-15,48), P = 0,040) en comparación con la anestesia local y un riesgo más alto tras la regional en comparación con la anestesia general (OR 3,87 (i.c. del 95% 1,10-13,60), P = 0,035). Los metaanálisis mostraron un riesgo más alto de retención de orina tras la anestesia regional en comparación con la anestesia local (P < 0,001), pero sin diferencias entre anestesia general y local (P = 0,08). CONCLUSIÓN: La anestesia local o general presentaba un riesgo significativo menor de retención urinaria en comparación con la anestesia regional. Las diferencias en mortalidad no pudieron ser evaluadas ya ningún paciente falleció tras la reparación electiva de Lichtenstein.