Single Shot Interscalene Block with Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Non-Liposomal Bupivacaine in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia is a valuable component of multimodal pain control in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and multiple interscalene block anesthetic options exist, including non-liposomal interscalene bupivacaine (NLIB) and liposomal interscalene bupivacaine (LIB). The purpose of the current of study was to compare pain control and opioid consumption within 48 hours postoperative in those undergoing TSA with either LIB or NLIB. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at a single academic medical center including consecutive patients undergoing inpatient (>23-hour hospitalization) primary anatomic or reverse TSA from 2016 to 2020 who received either LIB or a NLIB for perioperative pain control. Perioperative patient outcomes were collected including pain levels and opioid usage, as well as 30- and 90-day ED visits or readmissions. The primary outcome was postoperative pain and opioid use. RESULTS: Overall, 489 patients were included in this study (316 LIB and 173 NLIB). Pain scores at 3, 6, 12, and 48 hours postoperatively were not statistically significantly different (p>0.05 for all). However, the LIB group had improved pain scores at 24- and 36-hours postoperative (p<0.05 all). There was no difference in the incidence of severe postoperative pain, defined as a 9 or 10 NRS-11 score, between the two anesthesia groups after adjusting for preoperative pain and baseline opioid use (OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.57-2.74; p=0.57). Overall, 99/316 (31.3%) of patients receiving LIB did not require any postoperative opioids compared with 38/173 (22.0%) receiving NLIB; however, this difference was not statistically significant after adjusting for prior opioid use and preoperative pain (p=0.33). No statistically significant differences in postoperative total morphine equivalents or mean daily morphine equivalents consumed between the groups were found during their hospital stays (p>0.05 for both). Finally, no significant differences in 30- and 90-day ED visits or readmission rates were found (all p>0.05). CONCLUSION: LIB and NLIB demonstrated differences in patient reported pain scores at 24- and 36-hours post operation, although these did not reach clinical significance. There were no statistically significant differences in opioid consumption during the hospital stay, including opioid use, total morphine equivalents and daily mean morphine equivalents consumed during the hospital stay. Additionally, no differences were observed in 30- and 90-day ED visits or readmission rates.

Interscalene block with liposomal bupivacaine versus continuous interscalene catheter in primary total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal pain regimens in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) now include regional anesthetic techniques. Historically, regional anesthesia for extended postoperative pain control in TSA was administered using a continuous interscalene catheter (CIC). Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is used for its potential for similar pain control and fewer complications compared with indwelling catheters. We evaluated the efficacy of interscalene LB compared with a CIC in postoperative pain control for patients undergoing TSA. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary-care academic medical center including consecutive patients undergoing primary anatomic or reverse TSA from 2016 to 2020 who received either single-shot LB or a CIC for perioperative pain control. Perioperative and outcome variables were collected. The primary outcome was postoperative pain control, whereas the secondary outcome was health care utilization. RESULTS: The study included 565 patients, with 242 in the CIC cohort and 323 in the LB cohort. Demographic characteristics including sex (P = .99) and race (P = .81) were similar between the cohorts. The LB cohort had significantly lower mean pain scores at 24 hours (3 vs. 2, P < .001) and 36 hours (3 vs. 2, P < .001) postoperatively. The CIC cohort showed a higher percentage of patients experiencing a pain score of 9 or 10 postoperatively (29% vs. 17%, P = .001), whereas the LB cohort had a significantly greater proportion of opioid-free patients (32% vs. 10%, P < .001). Additionally, a greater proportion of CIC patients required opioid escalation to patient-controlled analgesia (7% vs. 2%, P = .002). The CIC cohort experienced a greater length of stay (2.3 days vs. 2.1 days, P = .01) and more 30-day emergency department visits (5% vs. 2%, P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: LB demonstrated lower mean pain scores at 24 and 36 hours postoperatively and lower rates of severe postoperative pain. Additionally, LB patients showed significantly higher rates of opioid-free pain regimens. These results suggest that as part of a multimodal pain regimen in primary shoulder arthroplasty, LB may provide greater reductions in pain and opioid use when compared with CICs.

Opening injection pressure consistently detects needle-nerve contact during ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block.

BACKGROUND: Needle trauma may cause neuropathy after nerve blockade. Even without injection, nerve injury can result from forceful needle-nerve contact (NNC). High opening injection pressures (OIPs) have been associated with intrafascicular needle tip placement and nerve damage; however, the relationship between OIP and NNC is unclear. The authors conducted a prospective, observational study to define this relationship. METHODS: Sixteen patients scheduled for shoulder surgery under interscalene block were enrolled if they had clear ultrasound images of the brachial plexus roots. A 22-gauge stimulating needle was inserted within 1 mm of the root, and 1-ml D5W injected at 10 ml/min by using an automated pump. OIP was monitored using an in-line pressure manometer and injections aborted if 15 psi or greater. The needle was advanced to displace the nerve slightly (NNC), and the procedure repeated. Occurrence of evoked motor response and paresthesia were recorded. RESULTS: Fifteen patients had at least one clearly visible root. OIP at 1 mm distance from the nerve was less than 15 psi (mean peak pressure 8.2 ± 2.4 psi) and the 1-ml injection could be completed in all but two cases (3%). In contrast, OIP during NNC was 15 psi or greater (mean peak pressure 20.9 ± 3.7 psi) in 35 of 36 injections. Aborting the injection when OIP reached 15 psi prevented commencement of injection in all cases of NNC except one. CONCLUSION: High OIP (≥15 psi) consistently detected NNC, suggesting that injection pressure monitoring may be useful in preventing injection against nerve roots during interscalene block.

Infraclavicular versus costoclavicular approaches to ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The costoclavicular approach to brachial plexus block may have a more favorable anatomy than the classic infraclavicular approach. However, there are conflicting results in the literature regarding the comparative effectiveness of these two techniques. METHODS: We systematically searched for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing costoclavicular with infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks for upper extremity surgeries on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ovid. The outcomes of interest were sensory and motor block onset times, performance times, block failure, and complication rate. We performed statistical analyses using RevMan 5.4 and assessed heterogeneity using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. We appraised the risk of bias according to Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool. RESULTS: We included 5 RCTs and 374 patients, of whom 189 (50.5%) were randomized to undergo costoclavicular block. We found no statistically significant differences between the two techniques regarding sensory block onset time in minutes (Mean Difference [MD = -0.39 min]; 95% CI -2.46 to 1.68 min; p = 0.71); motor block onset time in minutes (MD = -0.34 min; 95% CI -0.90 to 0.22 min; p = 0.23); performance time in minutes (MD = -0.12 min; 95% CI -0.89 to 0.64 min; p = 0.75); incidence of block failure (RR = 1.59; 95% CI 0.63 to 3.39; p = 0.63); and incidence of complications (RR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.84; p = 0.37). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that the CCV block may exhibit similar sensory and motor onset times when compared to the classic ICV approach in adults undergoing distal upper extremity surgery, with comparable rates of block failure and complications.

Regional anesthesia for trauma outside the operating theatre.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pain management in the trauma patient can be challenging, especially outside the operating room setting. Traditional analgesics such as opioids and NSAIDs are also problematic in trauma care. In this review, the use of regional anesthetic techniques outside the operating theatre is discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: Regional anesthesia is an increasing but still underutilized clinical tool for the trauma patient outside the operating room. Regional anesthesia provides well tolerated and effective analgesia and anesthesia for many indications in the trauma setting including hip fracture, reduction of joint dislocation, wound debridement, laceration repair, and multiple rib fractures. Its use can increase safety and resource allocation in emergency departments. Performance of peripheral nerve blocks, especially with ultrasound, is amenable in various medical environments with minimal training. SUMMARY: Pain is often poorly managed in the trauma patient. In addition to quality analgesia, regional anesthesia provides a variety of benefits in the trauma setting outside the traditional operating room setting. While further utilization requires increased training and structural changes, existing tools such as ultrasound are removing barriers to the widespread use of peripheral nerve block techniques across multiple disciplines.

Lower Extremity Peripheral Nerve Blocks for Patients at Risk for Acute Compartment Syndrome.

A delayed acute compartment syndrome (ACS) diagnosis often results in devastating complications; however, the sensitivity of the classic signs and symptoms is very low. All analgesic modalities have been implicated in delaying the diagnosis, but there is very little evidence linking peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) with delays in diagnosis. In fact, there is evidence that PNBs may facilitate an early diagnosis; this may be in part due to differences in how ischemic and inflammatory pain is transmitted through unique nociceptive pathways. Collaboration is required to optimize care for patients at risk for ACS.

Superior Trunk Block Is an Effective Phrenic-Sparing Alternative to Interscalene Block for Shoulder Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The interscalene block (ISB) is the standard regional anesthesia for shoulder arthroscopy. However, the superior trunk block (STB) is an alternative with a potentially safer profile. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the incidence and degree of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis and block efficacy of these techniques. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The main outcome was total hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. We used the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. Four RCTs and 359 patients were included. The STB group showed lower total hemidiaphragmatic paralysis (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.14; p<0.0001). The incidence of subjective dyspnea (p = 0.002) and Horner's syndrome (p<0.001) was significantly lower with STB relative to ISB. There was no significant difference between groups in block duration (p = 0.67). There was a high certainty of evidence in the main outcome as per the GRADE framework. Our findings suggest that STB has a better safety profile than ISB, resulting in lower rates of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis and dyspnea while providing a similar block. Therefore, STB could be preferred to ISB, especially in patients susceptible to phrenic nerve paralysis complications.

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.

The sequence of administration of 1.5% mepivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine does not affect latency of block onset or duration of analgesia in ultrasound-guided interscalene block.

BACKGROUND: During peripheral nerve blockade, different local anesthetics may be sequentially administered. Typically, a short- or intermediate-acting local anesthetic is administered before a long-acting local anesthetic to achieve a block with rapid onset and long duration. However, there is a paucity of data on advantages of such sequencing. We hypothesized that when using a sequential mixture of mepivacaine and bupivacaine for ultrasound-guided interscalene block, the order of injection of the drugs does not influence the clinical characteristics of the block achieved. METHODS: Sixty-four patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery (aged 18-65 years; ASA physical status I-II) with a single-injection ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block as sole anesthetic were studied. The subjects were randomized to receive 1 of 2 local anesthetic sequences: 15 mL of mepivacaine 1.5% followed by 15 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% (group A), or the same local anesthetics in the reverse order (group B). The durations of sensory and motor block were the primary outcomes. Block onset was also assessed. RESULTS: Duration of motor block was similar between group A and group B (10.1 ± 4.7 hours vs 10.3 ± 5.1 hours, mean difference 0.2 hours, 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.3 to 2.9, P = 0.9). Duration of analgesia was also similar between group A and group B (9.5 ± 5.6 hours vs 10.2 ± 4.5 hours, mean difference 0.7 hours, 95% CI -3.2 to 1.9, P = 0.42). Onset of sensory block was similar between the 2 groups (15.9 ± 7.1 minutes for group A, 13.9 ± 7.0 minutes for group B, mean difference 1.9 minutes, 95% CI -1.4 to 5.2, P = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: The sequence in which 15 mL mepivacaine 1.5% and 15 mL bupivacaine 0.5% are administered does not seem to have a clinically meaningful effect on duration or onset of ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block.

Recommendations for effective documentation in regional anesthesia: an expert panel Delphi consensus project.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. METHODS: Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement. RESULTS: Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. CONCLUSION: By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.

The effect of mixing 1.5% mepivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine on duration of analgesia and latency of block onset in ultrasound-guided interscalene block.

BACKGROUND: Short- and long-acting local anesthetics are commonly mixed to achieve nerve blocks with short onset and long duration. However, there is a paucity of data on advantages of such mixtures. We hypothesized that a mixture of mepivacaine and bupivacaine results in a faster onset than does bupivacaine and in a longer duration of blockade than does mepivacaine. METHODS: Sixty-four patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery (ages 18 to 65 years; ASA physical status I-II) with ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block as the sole anesthetic were studied. The subjects were randomized to receive 1 of 3 study solutions: 30 mL of mepivacaine 1.5%, 30 mL of bupivacaine 0.5%, or a mixture of 15 mL each of bupivacaine 0.5% and mepivacaine 1.5%. The block onset time and duration of motor and sensory block were assessed. RESULTS: Onset of sensory block in the axillary nerve distribution (superior trunk) was similar among the 3 groups (8.7 ± 4.3 minutes for mepivacaine, 10.0 ± 5.1 minutes for bupivacaine, and 11.3 ± 5.3 minutes for the combination group; P = 0.21 between all groups). The duration of motor block for the combination group (11.5 ± 4.7 hours) was between that of the bupivacaine (16.4 ± 9.4 hours) and mepivacaine (6.0 ± 4.2 hours) groups (P = 0.03 between bupivacaine and combination groups; P = 0.01 between mepivacaine and combination groups). Duration of analgesia was the shortest with mepivacaine (4.9 ± 2.4 hours), longest with bupivacaine (14.0 ± 6.2 hours), and intermediate with the combination group (10.3 ± 4.9 hours) (P < 0.001 for mepivacaine vs. combination group; P = 0.01 for bupivacaine vs. combination group). CONCLUSIONS: For ultrasound-guided interscalene block, a combination of mepivacaine 1.5% and bupivacaine 0.5% results in a block onset similar to either local anesthetic alone. The mean duration of blockade with a mepivacaine-bupivacaine mixture was significantly longer than block with mepivacaine 1.5% alone but significantly shorter than the block with bupivacaine 0.5% alone.

A Case Report of Bilateral Phrenic Nerve Dysfunction After Unilateral Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block: Unveiling Preexisting Diaphragmatic Dysfunction.

A 48-year-old woman with a history of cardiac surgery developed severe dyspnea and anxiety following right-sided supraclavicular nerve block for hand surgery. In this case, right phrenic nerve blockade from a supraclavicular block unmasked a subclinical hemidiaphragmatic paresis from phrenic nerve injury on the left, the latter likely due to previous cardiac surgery. When performing brachial plexus block at or above the clavicle, particularly for prior cardiothoracic surgical patients, anesthesiologists can easily, quickly, and inexpensively use point-of-care ultrasound to assess whether any degree of phrenic nerve dysfunction exists on the contralateral side, as patients may be asymptomatic at baseline.

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.

Monitoring during peripheral nerve blockade.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Objective monitors to warn against adverse events specific to the performance of nerve blockade are relatively unsophisticated compared with monitors used during general anesthesia. The purpose of this review is to outline the various monitors available, and how they can be used to reduce nerve block-related complications. RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence is accumulating for three objective means of preventing complications. Electrical nerve stimulation is insensitive, but specific, at detecting intraneural needle placement, such that if a motor response is obtained with a current of 0.2 mA or less, the needle tip is positioned intraneurally. Ultrasonography allows for reduction of the volume of local anesthetic required to accomplish a nerve block, reducing the potential for systemic toxicity. The value of ultrasound in reducing inadvertent puncture of neighboring structures, while intuitive, is less clear. Finally, injection pressure monitoring helps objectively distinguish between an injection into low versus high compliance tissue (e.g. intrafascicular versus extrafascicular). SUMMARY: Peripheral nerve blockade has evolved from an entirely blind procedure to a more reproducible subspecialty. Several monitors exist to objectively guide and monitor needle placement and application of local anesthetics. Because these monitors are complementary, best practice may involve combining all of these monitoring options when performing peripheral nerve blocks.

The relative analgesic value of a femoral nerve block versus adductor canal block following total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled, double-blinded study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple comparative studies report that adductor canal blocks provide similar pain relief to femoral nerve blocks following total knee arthroplasty. However, adductor canal blockade fails to anesthetize several important femoral nerve branches that contribute to knee innervation. We sought to clarify this anatomic discrepancy by performing both blocks in sequence, using patients as their own controls. We hypothesized that patients would experience additional pain relief following a superimposed femoral nerve block, demonstrating that these techniques are not equivalent. METHODS: Sixteen patients received continuous adductor canal block before undergoing knee arthroplasty under general anesthesia. In the recovery room, patients reported their pain score on a numeric scale of 0-10. Once a patient reached a score of five or greater, he/she was randomized to receive an additional femoral nerve block using 2% chloroprocaine or saline sham, and pain scores recorded every 5 min for 30 min. Patients received opioid rescue as needed. Anesthesiologists performing and assessing block efficacy were blinded to group allocation. RESULTS: Patients randomized to chloroprocaine versus saline reported significantly improved median pain scores 30 min after the femoral block (2.0 vs. 5.5, P = 0.0001). Patients receiving chloroprocaine also required significantly fewer morphine equivalents during the 30 min post-femoral block (1.0 vs. 4.5 mg, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Adductor canal block is a useful technique for postoperative pain following total knee arthroplasty, but it does not provide equivalent analgesic efficacy to femoral nerve block. Future studies comparing efficacy between various block sites along the thigh are warranted.