A single center descriptive study of local anesthetic dose in knee arthroplasty: Was there evidence of local anesthetic systemic toxicity?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Describe dosing of local anesthetic when both a periarticular injection (PAI) and peripheral nerve block (PNB) are utilized for knee arthroplasty analgesia, and compare the dosing of local to suggested maximum dosing, and look for evidence of local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). DESIGN: A single center retrospective cohort study between May 2018 and November 2022. SETTING: A major academic hospital. PATIENTS: Patients who had both a PAI and PNB while undergoing primary, revision, total, partial, unilateral, or bilateral knee arthroplasty. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Calculate the dose of local anesthetic given via PAI, PNB, and both routes combined as based on lean body weight and compare that to the suggested maximum dosing. Look for medications, clinical interventions, and critical event notes suggestive of a LAST event. MAIN RESULTS: There were 4527 knee arthroplasties where both a PAI and PNB were performed during the study period. When combining PAI and PNB doses, >75% of patients received more than the suggested maximum dose of 3 mg/kg lean body weight. The median local anesthetic dosing over the study period, 4.4 mg/kg (IQR 3.5,5.9), was 147% of the suggested maximum dose (IQR 117,197). There was no conclusive evidence of LAST among any of the patients in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Over the course of our study, we had 4527 knee arthroplasties with a median PAI and PNB local anesthetic dose that was 147% of the suggested maximum without any clear clinical evidence of a LAST event.

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of upper and lower limb nerve blocks.

BACKGROUND: Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks. METHODS: We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.

Motor-sparing peripheral nerve blocks for hip and knee surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the recent literature describing and comparing novel motor-sparing peripheral nerve block techniques for hip and knee surgery. This topic is relevant because the number of patients undergoing same day discharge after hip and knee surgery is increasing. Preserving lower extremity muscle function is essential to facilitate early physical therapy for these patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Distal peripheral nerve blocks may allow for preserved quadriceps motor strength and comparable analgesia to traditional techniques. However, few studies in hip and knee populations include strength or function as primary outcomes. For hip surgeries, studies have failed to show analgesic differences between regional blocks and periarticular infiltration. Similarly for knee arthroplasty in the absence of periarticular infiltration, recent evidence suggests adding combinations of blocks (ACB plus iPACK or genicular nerve blocks) may balance pain control and early ambulation. SUMMARY: The use of motor-sparing peripheral nerve block techniques enables early ambulation, adequate pain control, and avoidance of opioid-related side effects facilitating outpatient/ambulatory lower extremity surgery. Further studies of these techniques for continuous peripheral nerve block catheters are needed to assess if extended blockade continues to provide motor-sparing and opioid-sparing benefits.

The Efficacy and Safety of Regional Nerve Blocks in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Direct Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regional nerve blocks are widely used in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regional nerve blocks after TKA in support of the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published before March 24, 2020 on femoral nerve block, adductor canal block, and infiltration between Popliteal Artery and Capsule of Knee in primary TKA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the regional nerve blocks compared to a control, local peri-articular anesthetic infiltration (PAI), or between regional nerve blocks. RESULTS: Critical appraisal of 1,673 publications yielded 56 publications representing the best available evidence for analysis. Femoral nerve and adductor canal blocks are effective at reducing postoperative pain and opioid consumption, but femoral nerve blocks are associated with quadriceps weakness. Use of a continuous compared to single shot adductor canal block can improve postoperative analgesia. No difference was noted between an adductor canal block or PAI regarding postoperative pain and opioid consumption, but the combination of both may be more effective. CONCLUSION: Single shot adductor canal block or PAI should be used to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption following TKA. Use of a continuous adductor canal block or a combination of single shot adductor canal block and PAI may improve postoperative analgesia in patients with concern of poor postoperative pain control.

The Efficacy and Safety of Regional Nerve Blocks in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Direct Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regional nerve blocks may be used as a component of a multimodal analgesic protocol to manage postoperative pain after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regional nerve blocks after THA in support of the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published prior to March 24, 2020 on fascia iliaca, lumbar plexus, and quadratus lumborum blocks in primary THA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the regional nerve blocks. RESULTS: An initial critical appraisal of 3,382 publications yielded 11 publications representing the best available evidence for an analysis. Fascia iliaca, lumbar plexus, and quadratus lumborum blocks demonstrate the ability to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Among the available comparisons, no difference was noted between a regional nerve block or local periarticular anesthetic infiltration regarding postoperative pain and opioid consumption. CONCLUSION: Local periarticular anesthetic infiltration should be considered prior to a regional nerve block due to concerns over the safety and cost of regional nerve blocks. If a regional nerve block is used in primary THA, a fascia iliaca block is preferred over other blocks due to the differences in technical demands and risks associated with the alternative regional nerve blocks.

International consensus on anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia.

There is no universally agreed set of anatomical structures that must be identified on ultrasound for the performance of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) techniques. This study aimed to produce standardized recommendations for core (minimum) structures to identify during seven basic blocks. An international consensus was sought through a modified Delphi process. A long-list of anatomical structures was refined through serial review by key opinion leaders in UGRA. All rounds were conducted remotely and anonymously to facilitate equal contribution of each participant. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for "orientation scanning" (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for the "block view" (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). Strong recommendations for inclusion were made if ≥75% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" in any round. Weak recommendations were made if >50% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" or "probably include" for all rounds (but the criterion for "strong recommendation" was never met). Thirty-six participants (94.7%) completed all rounds. 128 structures were reviewed; a "strong recommendation" is made for 35 structures on orientation scanning and 28 for the block view. A "weak recommendation" is made for 36 and 20 structures, respectively. This study provides recommendations on the core (minimum) set of anatomical structures to identify during ultrasound scanning for seven basic blocks in UGRA. They are intended to support consistent practice, empower non-experts using basic UGRA techniques, and standardize teaching and research.

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.

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall blocks.

BACKGROUND: There is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement. RESULTS: Sixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.

Caffeine supplementation as part of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways: a narrative review of the evidence and knowledge gaps.

Caffeine is used daily by 85% of United States adults and caffeine withdrawal is a major cause of perioperative headache. Studies have shown that caffeine supplementation in chronic caffeinators reduces the incidence of perioperative headache. This narrative review discusses the perioperative implications of caffeine withdrawal and outlines the benefits of and strategies of caffeine supplementation in the perioperative period. It is time to "wake up and smell the coffee" on integration of caffeine into established enhanced recovery after surgery protocols as a mechanism to consistently provide perioperative caffeine replacement.

RéSUMé: La caféine est utilisée quotidiennement par 85 % des adultes aux États-Unis, et le sevrage de la caféine constitue une cause majeure de céphalées périopératoires. Des études ont montré que la supplémentation en caféine chez les grands buveurs de café réduisait l'incidence des céphalées périopératoires. Ce compte rendu narratif discute des implications périopératoires du sevrage de la caféine et décrit les avantages et les stratégies de la supplémentation en caféine en période périopératoire. Il est temps de « se réveiller à l'odeur du café ¼ quant à l'intégration de la caféine dans les protocoles de récupération rapide après la chirurgie en tant que mécanisme pour procurer de façon systématique un subsitut périopératoire à la caféine.

Peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: This review was published originally in 1999 and was updated in 2001, 2002, 2009, 2017, and 2020. Updating was deemed necessary due to the high incidence of hip fractures, the large number of official societies providing recommendations on this condition, the possibility that perioperative peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) may improve patient outcomes, and the major role that PNBs may play in reducing preoperative and postoperative opioid use for analgesia. OBJECTIVES: To compare PNBs used as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia, or as a supplement to general anaesthesia versus no nerve block (or sham block) for adults with hip fracture. Outcomes were pain on movement at 30 minutes after block placement, acute confusional state, myocardial infarction, chest infection, death, time to first mobilization, and costs of an analgesic regimen for single-injection blocks. We undertook the update to look for new studies and to update the methods to reflect Cochrane standards. SEARCH METHODS: For the updated review, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to November 2019); Embase (Ovid SP, 1974 to November 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO, 1982 to November 2019), as well as trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing use of PNBs compared with no nerve block (or sham block) as part of the care provided for adults 16 years of age and older with hip fracture.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened new trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool, and extracted data. When appropriate, we pooled results of outcome measures. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 49 trials (3061 participants; 1553 randomized to PNBs and 1508 to no nerve block (or sham block)). For this update, we added 18 new trials. Trials were published from 1981 to 2020. Trialists followed participants for periods ranging from 5 minutes to 12 months. The average age of participants ranged from 59 to 89 years. People with dementia were often excluded from the included trials. Additional analgesia was available for all participants. Results of 11 trials with 503 participants show that PNBs reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -0.86; equivalent to -2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10; high-certainty evidence). Effect size was proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used (P = 0.0003). Based on 13 trials with 1072 participants, PNBs reduce the risk of acute confusional state (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12, 95% CI 7 to 47; high-certainty evidence). For myocardial infarction, there were no events in one trial with 31 participants (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence). From three trials with 131 participants, PNBs probably reduce the risk for chest infection (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.89; NNTB 7, 95% CI 5 to 72; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 11 trials with 617 participants, the effects of PNBs on mortality within six months are uncertain due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). From three trials with 208 participants, PNBs likely reduce time to first mobilization (mean difference (MD) -10.80 hours, 95% CI -12.83 to -8.77 hours; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial with 75 participants indicated there may be a small reduction in the cost of analgesic drugs with a single-injection PNB (MD -4.40 euros, 95% CI -4.84 to -3.96 euros; low-certainty evidence). We identified 29 ongoing trials, of which 15 were first posted or at least were last updated after 1 January 2018.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PNBs reduce pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement, risk of acute confusional state, and probably also reduce the risk of chest infection and time to first mobilization. There may be a small reduction in the cost of analgesic drugs for single-injection PNB. We did not find a difference for myocardial infarction and mortality, but the numbers of participants included for these two outcomes were insufficient. Although randomized clinical trials may not be the best way to establish risks associated with an intervention, our review confirms low risks of permanent injury associated with PNBs, as found by others. Some trials are ongoing, but it is unclear whether any further RCTs should be registered, given the benefits found. Good-quality non-randomized trials with appropriate sample size may help to clarify the potential effects of PNBs on myocardial infarction and mortality.

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.

A 3-arm randomized clinical trial comparing interscalene blockade techniques with local infiltration analgesia for total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The ideal analgesic modality for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) remains controversial. We hypothesized that a multimodal analgesic pathway incorporating continuous interscalene blockade (ISB) provides better analgesic efficacy than both single-injection ISB and local infiltration analgesia. METHODS: This single-center, parallel, unblinded, randomized clinical trial evaluated 129 adults undergoing primary TSA. Patients were allocated to single-injection ISB, continuous ISB, or local infiltration analgesia. The primary outcome was the Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score (range, 0 [best] to 28 [worst]) on postoperative day 1. Additional outcomes included pain scores, opioid consumption, quality of life, and postoperative complications in the first 24 hours, at 3 months, and at 1 year. RESULTS: We analyzed 125 patients (42 with single-injection ISB, 41 with continuous ISB, and 42 with local infiltration analgesia). The Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score was significantly improved in the continuous group (median [25th percentile, 75th percentile], 0 [0, 2]) compared with the single-injection group (2 [1, 4]; P = .002) and local infiltration analgesia group (3 [2, 4]; P < .001). Pain scores were significantly lower in the continuous group compared with the local infiltration analgesia group (P < .001 for all time points) and after 12 hours from ward arrival compared with the single-injection group (median [25th percentile, 75th percentile], 1.0 [0.0, 2.8] vs. 2.5 [0.0, 4.0]; P = .016). After postanesthesia recovery discharge, opioid consumption (oral morphine equivalents) was significantly lower in the continuous group (median [25th percentile, 75th percentile], 7.5 mg [0.0, 25.0 mg]) than in the local infiltration analgesia group (30 mg [15.0, 52.5 mg]; P < .001) and single-injection group (17.6 mg [7.5, 45.5 mg]; P = .010). No differences were found across groups for complications, 3-month outcomes, and 1-year outcomes. CONCLUSION: Continuous ISB provides superior analgesia compared with single-injection ISB and local infiltration analgesia in the first 24 hours after TSA.