Research priorities in regional anaesthesia: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia use is growing worldwide, and there is an increasing emphasis on research in regional anaesthesia to improve patient outcomes. However, priorities for future study remain unclear. We therefore conducted an international research prioritisation exercise, setting the agenda for future investigators and funding bodies. METHODS: We invited members of specialist regional anaesthesia societies from six continents to propose research questions that they felt were unanswered. These were consolidated into representative indicative questions, and a literature review was undertaken to determine if any indicative questions were already answered by published work. Unanswered indicative questions entered a three-round modified Delphi process, whereby 29 experts in regional anaesthesia (representing all participating specialist societies) rated each indicative question for inclusion on a final high priority shortlist. If ≥75% of participants rated an indicative question as 'definitely' include in any round, it was accepted. Indicative questions rated as 'definitely' or 'probably' by <50% of participants in any round were excluded. Retained indicative questions were further ranked based on the rating score in the final Delphi round. The final research priorities were ratified by the Delphi expert group. RESULTS: There were 1318 responses from 516 people in the initial survey, from which 71 indicative questions were formed, of which 68 entered the modified Delphi process. Eleven 'highest priority' research questions were short listed, covering themes of pain management; training and assessment; clinical practice and efficacy; technology and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: We prioritised unanswered research questions in regional anaesthesia. These will inform a coordinated global research strategy for regional anaesthesia and direct investigators to address high-priority areas.

Randomized clinical trial comparing pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block and periarticular local anesthetic infiltration for total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: This randomized trial compared pericapsular nerve group block and periarticular local anesthetic infiltration in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty. We hypothesized that, compared with pericapsular nerve group block, periarticular local anesthetic infiltration would decrease the postoperative incidence of quadriceps weakness at 3 hours fivefold (ie, from 45% to 9%). METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive a pericapsular nerve group block (n=30) using 20 mL of adrenalized bupivacaine 0.50%, or periarticular local anesthetic infiltration (n=30) using 60 mL of adrenalized bupivacaine 0.25%. Both groups also received 30 mg of ketorolac, either intravenously (pericapsular nerve group block) or periarticularly (periarticular local anesthetic infiltration), as well as 4 mg of intravenous dexamethasone.Postoperatively, a blinded evaluator carried out sensory assessment and motor assessment (knee extension and hip adduction) at 3, 6 and 24 hours. Furthermore, the blinded observer also recorded static and dynamic pain scores at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36 and 48 hours; time to first opioid request; cumulative breakthrough morphine consumption at 24 hours and 48 hours; opioid-related side effects; ability to perform physiotherapy at 6, 24 and 48 hours; as well as length of stay. RESULTS: There were no differences in quadriceps weakness at 3 hours between pericapsular nerve group block and periarticular local anesthetic infiltration (20% vs 33%; p=0.469). Furthermore, no intergroup differences were found in terms of sensory block or motor block at other time intervals; time to first opioid request; cumulative breakthrough morphine consumption; opioid-related side effects; ability to perform physiotherapy; and length of stay. Compared with pericapsular nerve group block, periarticular local anesthetic infiltration resulted in lower static pain scores (at all measurement intervals) and dynamic pain scores (at 3 and 6 hours). CONCLUSION: For primary total hip arthroplasty, pericapsular nerve group block and periarticular local anesthetic infiltration result in comparable rates of quadriceps weakness. However, periarticular local anesthetic infiltration is associated with lower static pain scores (especially during the first 24 hours) and dynamic pain scores (first 6 hours). Further investigation is required to determine the optimal technique and local anesthetic admixture for periarticular local anesthetic infiltration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05087862.

Randomized comparison between perineural dexamethasone and combined perineural dexamethasone-dexmedetomidine for ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block.

BACKGROUND: This randomized trial compared perineural dexamethasone with combined perineural dexamethasone-dexmedetomidine for ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block. We hypothesized that the combination of perineural adjuvants would result in a longer motor block. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing upper limb surgery with ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block (using 35 mL of lidocaine 1%-bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 µg/mL) were randomly allocated to receive perineural dexamethasone (2 mg) or combined perineural dexamethasone (2 mg)-dexmedetomidine (50 µg). After the performance of the block, a blinded observer assessed the success rate (defined as a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 out of 16 points at 30 min), the onset time (defined as the time required to reach a minimal composite score of 14 points) as well as the incidence of surgical anesthesia (defined as the ability to complete surgery without local infiltration, supplemental blocks, intravenous opioids or general anesthesia).Postoperatively, the blinded observer contacted patients with successful blocks to inquire about the duration of motor block, sensory block and postoperative analgesia. RESULTS: No intergroup differences were observed in terms of success rate, onset time and surgical anesthesia. Compared with dexamethasone alone, combined dexamethasone-dexmedetomidine provided longer durations of motor block (21.5 (2.7) vs 17.0 (3.9) hours; p<0.001; 95% CI 2.6 to 6.4), sensory block (21.6 (3.6) vs 17.2 (3.6) hours; p<0.001; 95% CI 2.2 to 6.5), and postoperative analgesia (25.5 (9.4) vs 23.5 (5.6) hours; p=0.038; 95% CI 1.0 to 7.7). CONCLUSION: Compared with perineural dexamethasone (2 mg) alone, combined perineural dexamethasone (2 mg)-dexmedetomidine (50 µg) results in longer durations of sensorimotor block and analgesia. Further studies are required to determine the optimal dosing combination for dexamethasone-dexmedetomidine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04875039.

Randomized comparison between pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block and suprainguinal fascia iliaca block for total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: This randomized trial compared ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group block and suprainguinal fascia iliaca block in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty. We selected the postoperative incidence of quadriceps motor block (defined as paresis or paralysis of knee extension) at 6 hours as the primary outcome. We hypothesized that, compared with suprainguinal fascia iliaca block, pericapsular nerve group block would decrease its occurrence from 70% to 20%. METHODS: Forty patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive a pericapsular nerve group block (n=20) using 20 mL of adrenalized levobupivacaine 0.50%, or a suprainguinal fascia iliaca block (n=20) using 40 mL of adrenalized levobupivacaine 0.25%. After the performance of the block, a blinded observer recorded pain scores at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 hours; cumulative breakthrough morphine consumption at 24 and 48 hours; opioid-related side effects; ability to perform physiotherapy at 24 and 48 hours; as well as length of stay. Furthermore, the blinded observer also carried out sensory assessment (of the anterior, lateral, and medial aspects of the mid-thigh) and motor assessment (knee extension and hip adduction) at 3, 6, and 24 hours. RESULTS: Compared with suprainguinal fascia iliaca block, pericapsular nerve group block resulted in a lower incidence of quadriceps motor block at 3 hours (45% vs 90%; p<0.001) and 6 hours (25% vs 85%; p<0.001). Furthermore, pericapsular nerve group block also provided better preservation of hip adduction at 3 hours (p=0.023) as well as decreased sensory block of the anterior, lateral, and medial thighs at all measurement intervals (all p≤0.014). No clinically significant intergroup differences were found in terms of postoperative pain scores, cumulative opioid consumption at 24 and 48 hours, ability to perform physiotherapy, opioid-related side effects, and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: For primary total hip arthroplasty, pericapsular nerve group block results in better preservation of motor function than suprainguinal fascia iliaca block. Additional investigation is required to elucidate the optimal local anesthetic volume for motor-sparing pericapsular nerve group block and to compare the latter with alternate motor-sparing strategies such as periarticular local anesthetic infiltration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04402450.

Erector spinae plane block: A narrative review with systematic analysis of the evidence pertaining to clinical indications and alternative truncal blocks.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This narrative review discusses the anatomy, mechanism of action, techniques, pharmacology, indications, complications and substitutes for erector spinae plane (ESP) blocks. INTERVENTIONS: The Medline, Embase and Google Scholar databases (inception-last week of April 2020) were searched. For indications and alternative blocks, a systematic analysis of the available evidence was carried out. In order to highlight the best evidence available, only randomized trials with prospective registration, blinded assessment and sample size justification were retained for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: The collective body of anatomical studies suggests that ESP block may work through a combination of different mechanisms (e.g., local anesthetic spread to the thoracic paravertebral space, epidural space, and dorsal ramus). Compared to control, the available evidence suggests that ESP block results in decreased postoperative pain and opioid requirement for a wide array of thoracic and abdominal surgical interventions. Erector spinae plane blocks and thoracic paravertebral blocks seem to provide comparable benefits for thoracoscopic and breast cancer surgery when performed with a similar number of injections. Currently, ESP blocks should be favored over intercostal blocks since, at best, the latter provide similar analgesia to ESP blocks despite requiring multiple-level injections. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, ESP blocks have become the topic of considerable clinical interest. Future trials are required to investigate their optimal technique, dose of local anesthetic and perineural adjuvants. Moreover, additional investigation should compare ESP blocks with robust multimodal analgesic regimens as well as truncal blocks such as thoracic epidural block, midpoint transverse process to pleura block, PECS block, quadratus lumborum block, and transversus abdominis plane block.

Motor-sparing nerve blocks for total knee replacement: A scoping review.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This scoping review investigates the optimal combination of motor-sparing analgesic interventions for patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR). DESIGN: Scoping review. INTERVENTION: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched (inception-last week of May 2020). Only trials including motor-sparing interventions were included. Randomized controlled trials lacking prospective registration and blinded assessment were excluded. MAIN RESULTS: The cumulative evidence suggests that femoral triangle blocks outperform placebo and periarticular infiltration. When combined with the latter, femoral triangle blocks are associated with improved pain control, higher patient satisfaction and decreased opioid consumption. Continuous femoral triangle blocks provide superior postoperative analgesia compared with their single-injection counterparts. However, these benefits seem less pronounced when perineural adjuvants are used. Combined femoral triangle-obturator blocks result in improved analgesia and swifter discharge compared with femoral triangle blocks alone. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal analgesic strategy for TKR may include a combination of different analgesic modalities (periarticular infiltration, femoral triangle blocks, obturator nerve block). Future trials are required to investigate the incremental benefits provided by local anesthetic infiltration between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the knee (IPACK), popliteal plexus block and genicular nerve block.

Lumbar plexus block versus suprainguinal fascia iliaca block for total hip arthroplasty: A single-blinded, randomized trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Comparison of ultrasound-guided lumbar plexus block (LPB) and suprainguinal fascia iliaca block (SIFIB) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). DESIGN: Randomized equivalence trial. SETTING: University Hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty patients undergoing primary THA. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive ultrasound-guided LPB (n = 30) or SIFIB (n = 30). The local anesthetic agent (40 mL of levobupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 µg/mL) and block adjuvant (4 mg of intravenous dexamethasone) were identical in all subjects. Postoperatively, all patients received patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (morphine) as well as acetaminophen and ketoprofen during 48 h. MEASUREMENTS: A blinded investigator recorded morphine consumption at 24 and 48 h as well as time to first morphine request, pain scores at 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h, incidence of adverse events, time to readiness for discharge, and length of hospital stay. The blinded investigator also carried out sensorimotor block assessment at 3, 6 and 24 h using a 10-point sensorimotor composite scale. MAIN RESULTS: No intergroup differences were found in terms of cumulative morphine consumption at 24 h (95% CI: -4.0 mg to 2.0 mg) and 48 h (95% CI, -5.0 mg to 2.0 mg) or time to first morphine request. Furthermore, pain scores were similar at all time intervals after 3 h. There were no intergroup differences in terms of composite sensorimotor scores at 3 and 6 h. However, SIFIB lasted longer than lumbar plexus block as evidenced by a higher composite score at 24 h. No intergroup differences were found in terms of complications. Compared with LPB, SIFIB was associated with shorter time to readiness for discharge (3 [1-4] vs. 2 [1-3] days; P = 0.042) and length of hospital stay (3 [2-5] vs. 3 [2-4] days; P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: For THA, no differences were found between LPB and SIFIB in terms of breakthrough morphine requirement and pain control. However, SIFIB resulted in a longer block and was associated with shorter time to readiness for discharge as well as decreased hospital stay.

Single- versus double-injection costoclavicular block: a randomized comparison.

BACKGROUND: The costoclavicular approach targets the brachial plexus in the proximal infraclavicular fossa, where the lateral, medial, and posterior cords are tightly bundled together. This randomized trial compared single- and double-injection ultrasound-guided costoclavicular blocks. We selected onset time as the primary outcome and hypothesized that, compared with its single-injection counterpart, the double-injection technique would result in a swifter onset. METHODS: Ninety patients undergoing upper limb surgery (at or below the elbow joint) were randomly allocated to receive a single- (n=45) or double-injection (n=45) ultrasound-guided costoclavicular block. The local anesthetic agent (35 mL of lidocaine 1%-bupivacaine 0.25%with epinephrine 5 µg/mL and 2 mg of preservative-free dexamethasone) was identical in all subjects. In the single-injection group, the entire volume of local anesthetic was injected between the three cords of the brachial plexus. In the double-injection group, the first half of the volume was administered in this location; the second half was deposited between the medial cord and the subclavian artery. After the performance of the block, a blinded observer recorded the onset time (defined as the time required to achieve a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 out of 16 points), success rate (surgical anesthesia) and block-related pain scores. Performance time and the number of needle passes were also recorded during the performance of the block. The total anesthesia-related time was defined as the sum of the performance and onset times. RESULTS: Compared with its single-injection counterpart, the double-injection technique displayed shorter onset time (16.6 (6.4) vs 23.4 (6.9) min; p<0.001; 95% CI for difference 3.9 to 9.7) and total anesthesia-related time (22.5 (6.7) vs 28.9 (7.6) min; p<0.001). No intergroup differences were found in terms of success and technical execution (ie, performance time/procedural pain). The double-injection group required more needle passes than the single-injection group (2 (1-4) vs 1 (1-3); p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared with its single-injection counterpart, double-injection costoclavicular block results in shorter onset and total anesthesia-related times. Further investigation is required to determine if a triple-injection technique (with targeted local anesthetic injection around each cord of the brachial plexus) could further decrease the onset time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03595514.

Recomendaciones para la ejecución de anestesia regional no obstétrica en perioperatorio de pacientes COVID-19 / Recommendations for the execution of non-obstetric regional anesthesia in treatment of COVID-19 patients

En diciembre de 2019, surgió una serie de casos de neumonía causada por un nuevo coronavirus, denominado 2019-nCoV o SARS-CoV2. La propagación del virus ha sido extremadamente rápida y la organización mundial de la salud declaró a la enfermedad COVID-19, causada por 2019-nCoV, como una pandemia. En este contexto la Sociedad de Anestesiología de Chile (SACH) ha elaborado recomendaciones generales para el manejo perioperatorio de los pacientes sospechosos y/o portadores de la enfermedad. Sin embargo, dado que durante el levantamiento de evidencia para la confección de dicha guía se objetivó la ausencia de sugerencias específicas para la ejecución de técnicas de anestesia regional fuera del ambiente obstétrico, se solicitó desde el Comité Científico de SACH al Comité de Anestesia Regional de SACH (CARSACH), representante LASRA (LatinAmerican Society of Regional Anesthesia) en Chile, a través de un grupo de expertos, confeccionar recomendaciones locales en esta materia.