Anesthesia Learning in the Digital Age: Are Program Directors and Residents on the Same Page?

BACKGROUND: In our current digital age, textbooks have been supplemented or supplanted by multiple online modalities for knowledge acquisition. Trainees, often from a younger generation than their program directors (PDs), prefer asynchronous options such as podcasts, videos, and question banks. We sought to identify whether an educational gap exists between PDs and trainees regarding what is assigned and what is used. METHODS: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted in the United States in 2018-2019 to characterize anesthesiology resident and PD perceptions of academic knowledge acquisition. RESULTS: Of the 149 PDs, 85 completed the survey (57%). Of the 85 PDs, 36 forwarded the survey to residents. Of the 1414 residents who received the survey, 503 residents responded to the survey (36%). The PDs thought residents used didactics, assigned reading, and scheduled simulations more than residents reported (P < .001). Residents reported using self-directed learning more (P = .004). Most residents (74.1%) reported using textbooks or online reading materials. Those residents reporting >70th percentile on the In-Training Exam used textbooks or online materials more than those who reported low scores (<30th percentile; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a discrepancy between PD and resident views on where and how knowledge acquisition occurs. Asynchronous forms of education (especially podcasts) are popular, but they are rarely assigned by programs. Although residents have a wide variety of learning preferences, textbook and online reading may be associated with higher In-Training Exam scores (a common way that knowledge acquisition is measured). The PDs should consider providing multiple options for optimizing knowledge acquisition, including textbook reading, to meet resident preferences and maximize testing success.

Analgesic efficacy of intravenous naloxone for the treatment of postoperative pruritus: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Pruritus may be a significant problem for patients in the postoperative period. There are many options for the treatment of pruritus including intravenous (IV) naloxone. However, it is not clear whether the use of IV naloxone may also affect analgesia or other opioid-related side effects. The authors have performed a systematic review to further examine this issue. METHODS: Systematic literature searches of the National Library of Medicine's PubMed and EMBASE databases were conducted using terms related to postoperative use of IV naloxone. Only randomized controlled trials comparing IV naloxone used either as a continuous infusion or part of an IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) regimen after surgical procedures were considered. The data on pertinent study characteristics and relevant outcomes were extracted from accepted articles. There was no restriction on language for inclusion. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 4.2.10 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2004). A random effects model was used. RESULTS: The literature searches yielded eight articles that met all inclusion criteria. There were a total of 424 subjects in the naloxone group and 376 in the saline group. The authors found that the use of naloxone was associated with a decreased risk for pruritus (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.21-0.79, p = 0.006] and nausea [OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.43-0.89, p = 0.009]. However, the use of IV naloxone (vs no naloxone) did not significantly influence the risk of postoperative emesis [OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.70-1.33, p = 0.83], opioid consumption [OR = 0.29, 95% CI = -3.54-4.13, p = 0.88], or sedation [OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.38-1.74, p = 0.60]. Finally, the use of IV naloxone did not appear to be associated with any significant change in visual analog score pain scores at 24 hours postoperatively (weighted mean difference = -0.14, 95% CI = -0.50-0.23, p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Our pooled analysis examining the analgesic efficacy of IV naloxone (either as a continuous infusion or IV PCA) revealed that naloxone was associated with a decrease in pruritus and nausea without any increase in pain scores. When compared with controls, the use of IV naloxone was not associated with any significant changes in opioid consumption or with the risk of sedation or emesis.

Analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia: a meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if the use of ultrasound guidance (vs non-ultrasound techniques) improves the success rate of nerve blocks. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the published literature. SETTING: University medical center. MEASUREMENTS: 16 RCTs of patients undergoing elective surgical procedures were studied. Patients underwent ultrasound-guided or non-ultrasound techniques (nerve stimulation, surface landmark) for peripheral nerve blocks. Success rates were measured. MAIN RESULTS: Ultrasound guidance (vs all non-ultrasound techniques) was associated with a significant increase in the success rate of nerve blocks [relative risk (RR) = 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 1.17, P < 0.0001]). When compared with nerve stimulator techniques only, ultrasound guidance was still associated with an increase in the success rate (RR = 1.11 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.17, P = 0.0001]). For specific blocks, ultrasound guidance (vs all non-ultrasound) was associated with a significant increase in successful brachial plexus (all) nerve blocks (RR = 1.11 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.20, P = 0.0001]), sciatic popliteal nerve block (RR = 1.22 [95% CI: 1.08 to 1.39, P = 0.002]) and brachial plexus axillary nerve block (RR = 1.13 [95% CI: 1.00 to 1.26, P = 0.05]) but not brachial plexus infraclavicular nerve block (RR = 1.25 [95% CI: 0.88 to 1.76, P = 0.22]). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block is associated with an increased overall success rate when compared with nerve stimulation or other methods. Ultrasound-guided techniques also increase the success rate of some specific blocks.

Comparison of the postoperative analgesic efficacy of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with tramadol to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) with tramadol is an accepted method to deliver postoperative analgesia outside North America; however, the analgesic efficacy of this analgesic agent when compared with IVPCA with opioids is uncertain. As such, the authors undertook a systematic review to compare the analgesic efficacy of IVPCA tramadol with that of IVPCA with opioids. METHODS: The authors used the National Library of Medicine's Medline database to search for terms related to tramadol and patient-controlled analgesia. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVPCA tramadol with IVPCA opioid and RCTs published in the English language. Relevant data were abstracted from accepted studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 4.2.10 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2004). A random effects model was used. RESULTS: A total of 190 abstracts were obtained from the above search, and a total of 12 RCTs met the above inclusion criteria. There was no difference in weighted visual analog scale pain scores between IVPCA tramadol versus IVPCA opioid at 48 hours postoperatively or risk of sedation or fatigue. IVPCA tramadol was associated with a higher odds of postoperative nausea and vomiting [odds ratio (OR) = 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.07-2.14) but a lower odds of pruritus (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.19-0.98). DISCUSSION: IVPCA tramadol appears to produce similar pain scores when compared with that from IVPCA opioids; however, the side effect profile is different between the two groups. Because of the relatively small sample size, no determination of the relative "safety" (eg, respiratory depression) of one regimen over the other can be made, and larger RCTs would be needed for such a determination.