A randomized comparison between interscalene and combined infraclavicular-suprascapular blocks for arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND: This randomized trial aimed to evaluate combined infraclavicular-suprascapular blocks (ICB-SSBs) as a diaphragm-sparing alternative to interscalene blocks (ISBs) for arthroscopic shoulder surgery. We hypothesized that ICB-SSB would provide equivalent postoperative analgesia to ISB 30 min after surgery without the risk of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. METHODS: Following research ethics board approval and written informed consent, participants in the ISB group received an ultrasound-guided ISB with 20 mL of levobupivacaine 0.25% and epinephrine 5 µg·mL-1. In the ICB-SSB group, ultrasound-guided ICB (20 mL) and SSB (10 mL) were carried out using the same local anesthetic. Thirty minutes after the block was performed, a blinded investigator assessed the presence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. Subsequently, all patients underwent general anesthesia. Postoperatively, a blinded investigator recorded pain scores at rest at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 and 24 hr. Consumption of intra- and postoperative narcotics was also tabulated. RESULTS: Compared to its ICB-SSB counterpart, the ISB group displayed non-equivalent (i.e., lower) postoperative pain scores at 30 min (difference of the medians, -4; 99% confidence interval [CI], -6 to -3), required less cumulative morphine iv at 24 hr (difference of the means, -6.1 mg; 95% CI, -10.5 to -1.6), and resulted in a higher incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis (18/20 vs 0/20 patients, respectively; P < 0.001). Although postoperative pain scores at one, two, and three hours appeared lower in the ISB group, the upper bounds of the 99% CIs did not exceed the equivalence margin. CONCLUSION: Compared with ICB-SSB, ISB provided non-equivalent (i.e., lower) postoperative pain scores 30 min after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Thereafter, postoperative analgesia was comparable between the two groups. Further trials are required to compare ISB with ICB-SSB using a proximal (i.e., costoclavicular) technique for ICB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02993939. Registered 12 December 2016.

Treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: an updated systematic review and narrative synthesis.

PURPOSE: Although multiple treatments have been advocated for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), the levels of supportive evidence are variable and sometimes limited. The purpose of this updated review is to provide a critical analysis of the evidence pertaining to the treatment of CRPS derived from recent randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). SOURCE: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify relevant RCTs conducted on human subjects and published in English between 1 May 2009 and 24 August 2017. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The search yielded 35 RCTs of variable quality pertaining to the treatment of CRPS. Published trials continue to support the use of bisphosphonates and short courses of oral steroids in the setting of CRPS. Although emerging evidence suggests a therapeutic role for ketamine, memantine, intravenous immunoglobulin, epidural clonidine, intrathecal clonidine/baclofen/adenosine, aerobic exercise, mirror therapy, virtual body swapping, and dorsal root ganglion stimulation, further confirmatory RCTs are warranted. Similarly, trials also suggest an expanding role for peripheral sympathetic blockade (i.e., lumbar/thoracic sympathetic, stellate ganglion, and brachial plexus blocks). CONCLUSIONS: Since our prior systematic review article (published in 2010), 35 RCTs related to CRPS have been reported. Nevertheless, the quality of trials remains variable. Therefore, further research is required to continue investigating possible treatments for CRPS.

Ultrasound with neurostimulation compared with ultrasound guidance alone for lumbar plexus block: A randomised single blinded equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided lumbar plexus blocks usually require confirmatory neurostimulation. A simpler alternative is to inject local anaesthetic inside the posteromedial quadrant of the psoas muscle under ultrasound guidance. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that both techniques would result in similar total anaesthesia time, defined as the sum of performance and onset time. DESIGN: A randomised, observer-blinded, equivalence trial. SETTING: Ramathibodi Hospital and Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital (Thailand) from 12 May 2016 to 10 January 2017. PATIENTS: A total of 110 patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty, who required lumbar plexus block for postoperative analgesia. INTERVENTION: In the combined ultrasonography-neurostimulation group, quadriceps-evoked motor response was sought at a current between 0.2 and 0.8 mA prior to local anaesthetic injection (30 ml of lidocaine 1% and levobupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 µg ml and 5 mg of dexamethasone). In the ultrasound guidance alone group, local anaesthetic was simply injected inside the posteromedial quadrant of the psoas muscle. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: We measured the total anaesthesia time, the success rate (at 30 min), the number of needle passes, block-related pain, cumulative opioid consumption (at 24 h) and adverse events (vascular puncture, paraesthesia, local anaesthetic spread to the epidural space). The equivalence margin was 7.4 min. RESULTS: Compared with ultrasound guidance alone, combined ultrasonography-neurostimulation resulted in decreased mean (±SD) total anaesthesia time [15.3 (±6.5) vs. 20.1 (±9.0) min; mean difference, -4.8; 95% confidence interval, -8.1 to -1.9; P = 0.005] and mean (±SD) onset time [10.2 (±5.6) vs. 15.5 (±9.0) min; P = 0.004). No inter-group differences were observed in terms of success rate, performance time, number of needle passes, block-related pain, opioid consumption or adverse events. CONCLUSION: Although the ultrasonography-neurostimulation technique results in a shorter total anaesthesia time compared with ultrasound guidance alone, this difference falls within our accepted equivalence margin (±7.4 min). TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials in the (Study ID: TCTR20160427003).

A randomized comparison between costoclavicular and paracoracoid ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block for upper limb surgery.

BACKGROUND: This two-centre randomized trial compared costoclavicular and paracoracoid ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block in patients undergoing upper limb surgery. We hypothesized that both techniques would result in similar onset times and designed the study as an equivalence trial. METHODS: Ninety patients undergoing upper limb surgery at or distal to the elbow were randomly allocated to receive a costoclavicular (n = 45) or paracoracoid (n = 45) ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block. Both groups received a 35-mL mixture of 1% lidocaine-0.25% bupivacaine with epinephrine 5 µg·mL-1. In the costoclavicular group, local anesthetic was injected into the costoclavicular space in the middle of the three cords of the brachial plexus. In the paracoracoid group, local anesthetic was deposited dorsal to the axillary artery in the lateral infraclavicular fossa. A blinded observer recorded the block onset time (primary endpoint), success rate (i.e., surgical anesthesia), block-related pain scores, as well as the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. 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: The mean (SD) onset times were comparable between the costoclavicular and paracoracoid groups [16.0 (7.5) min vs 16.8 (6.2) min, respectively; mean difference, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, -2.3 to 3.8; P = 0.61]. Furthermore, no intergroup differences were found in terms of performance time (P = 0.09), total anesthesia-related time (P = 0.90), surgical anesthesia (P > 0.99), and hemidiaphragmatic paralysis (P > 0.99). The paracoracoid technique required marginally fewer median [interquartile range] needle passes than the costoclavicular technique (2 [1-4] vs 2 [1-6], respectively; P = 0.048); however, procedural pain was comparable between the two study groups. CONCLUSION: Costoclavicular and paracoracoid ultrasound-guided infraclavicular blocks resulted in similar onset times. Furthermore, no intergroup differences were found in terms of performance times and success rates. Future dose-finding trials are required to elucidate the minimum effective volume of local anesthetic for costoclavicular infraclavicular blocks. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.in.th (Study ID: TCTR20160525001).

A randomized comparison between intravenous and perineural dexamethasone for ultrasound-guided axillary block.

BACKGROUND: This randomized double-blinded trial compared the effect of intravenous and perineural dexamethasone (8 mg) on the duration of motor block for ultrasound (US)-guided axillary brachial plexus block (AXB). METHODS: Patients undergoing upper limb surgery with US-guided AXB were randomly allocated to receive preservative-free dexamethasone (8 mg) via intravenous (n = 75) or perineural (n = 75) administration. The local anesthetic agent, 1% lidocaine -0.25% bupivacaine (30 mL) with epinephrine 5 µg·mL-1, was identical in all subjects. Operators and patients were blinded to the nature of the intravenous and perineural injectate. A blinded observer assessed the block success rate (i.e., a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 out of 16 points at 30 min), block onset time, as well as the presence of surgical anesthesia. Postoperatively, the blinded observer contacted all patients with successful blocks to record the duration of motor block (primary outcome), sensory block, and postoperative analgesia. RESULTS: No intergroup differences were observed in terms of success rate, surgical anesthesia, and block onset time. Compared to intravenous administration, perineural dexamethasone provided longer mean (SD) durations for motor block [17.5 (4.6) hr vs 12.8 (4.5) hr; mean difference, 4.6 hr; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.21 to -3.08; P < 0.001], sensory block [17.7 (5.1) hr vs 13.7 (5.0) hr; mean difference, 4.0 hr; 95% CI, -5.77 to -2.27; P < 0.001], and postoperative analgesia [21.1 (4.6) hr vs 17.1 (4.6) hr; mean difference, 4.0 hr; 95% CI, -5.70 to -2.30; P < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Compared to intravenous dosing, perineural dexamethasone (8 mg) results in longer durations of sensorimotor block and postoperative analgesia for ultrasound-guided axillary block. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT02629835.

Parenteral Parecoxib Provides a Similar Reduction in Opioid Requirement to Single-Shot Sciatic Nerve Block after Total Knee Arthroplasty when Combined with Continuous Femoral Nerve Block.

Objective: Continuous femoral nerve blockade has become an accepted modality in the management of pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, posterior knee pain can be problematic and often requires additional analgesia. The present study compared the use of parenteral parecoxib to single-shot sciatic block for this purpose. Material and Method: After the Ethic Review Board gave approval, adults undergoing TKA were randomly divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (Gr-F+S) received single-shot sciatic nerve block (SNB) with 0.25% bupivacaine 25 ml in addition to continuous femoral analgesia (CFA) (0.125% bupivacaine 7 ml/h); group 2 (Gr-F+P) received parenteral parecoxib 40 mg q 12 hours with CFA; and group 3 (Gr-F) received only CFA. Assessments were performed at 0, 6, 12, and 24 hours post op. and included the following variables: NRS (numerical rating score) at rest, morphine use, time to first analgesic dose and side effects. Results: Seventy-eight patients were enrolled, with 26 participants in each of the 3 groups. There was no inter-group difference in pain score (NRS). However, morphine requirements in the first 24 hours were significantly increased in Gr-F (17±12 mg) when compared to Gr-F+S (10±7 mg) and Gr-F+P (9±5 mg) (p<0.001). There was no difference in time to first analgesic dose, side effects or patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Parenteral parecoxib and single-shot SNB both significantly reduced morphine requirements when used in combination with femoral nerve blockade after TKA.

A randomized trial comparing axillary block versus targeted intracluster injection supraclavicular block for upper limb surgery.

PURPOSE: This randomized trial aimed to validate a new method for brachial plexus blockade, i.e., targeted intracluster injection supraclavicular block (TII SCB), by comparing it with ultrasound-guided axillary block (AXB). We hypothesized that TII SCB would result in a shorter total anesthesia-related time. METHODS: Forty patients undergoing upper limb surgery were randomized to ultrasound-guided TII SCB (n = 20) or AXB (n = 20). In the TII SCB group, we deposited 16 mL of lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine 5 µg·mL(-1) into the largest neural cluster (i.e., brachial plexus trunks/divisions). Subsequently, an additional 16 mL was divided into equal aliquots and injected inside each satellite cluster. In the AXB group, 5.5 mL were deposited around the musculocutaneous nerve and 23.5 mL were injected at the 6 o'clock position of the axillary artery. The main outcome for comparison between the two groups was the total anesthesia-related time (defined as the sum of block performance and onset times). We also recorded the number of needle passes, procedural pain, and complications (vascular puncture, paresthesia). RESULTS: The TII SCB method provided a quicker mean (SD) onset time compared with the AXB group [9.5 (5.8) min vs 18.9 (6.1) min; mean difference, -9.5 min; 99% CI, -14.7 to -4.2; P < 0.001] and a shorter mean (SD) total anesthesia-related time [20.1 (5.0) min vs 27.2 (6.5) min; mean difference, -7.0 min; 95% CI, -10.9 to -3.1; P = 0.001]. There were no intergroup differences in terms of success rate (95%), procedural pain, vascular puncture and paresthesia. The AXB group displayed a faster performance time [8.2 (1.6) min vs 10.6 (2.6) min; P = 0.001] with fewer median [interquartile range] needle passes (3 [2-6] vs 5 [4-8]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided TII SCB provides a quicker onset and a shorter total anesthesia-related time than ultrasound-guided AXB.

A randomized comparison between double-injection and targeted intracluster-injection ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block.

BACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study, we compared double-injection (DI) ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block to a novel targeted intracluster-injection (TII) technique, whereby local anesthetic is injected inside the main and satellite neural clusters (confluences of trunks and divisions of the brachial plexus). METHODS: Ninety patients were randomly allocated to receive a DI (n = 45) or TII (n = 45) technique for ultrasound-guided supraclavicular block. The local anesthetic drug (lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine 5 µg/mL) and total volume (32 mL) were identical in all subjects. In both groups, half the volume (16 mL) was injected inside the main neural cluster. For the DI technique, the second half (16 mL) was deposited at the "corner pocket" (intersection of the first rib and subclavian artery). In contrast, for the TII technique, the remaining half was divided into equal aliquots and injected inside every single satellite cluster. The main outcome variable was the total anesthesia-related time (sum of performance and onset times). RESULTS: Due to a quicker onset (mean ± standard deviation (SD): 10.1 ± 6.4 vs 18.5 ± 8.3 minutes; P < 0.0001), the total anesthesia-related time was shorter with the TII technique (21.2 ± 7.7 vs 27.7 ± 9.0 minutes; P = 0.001; 95% confidence interval for the difference of the means: 2.90-10.08 minutes). There were 0 (of 45) and 3 (of 45) surgical failures for the TII and DI group, respectively. Thus, the 2 methods achieved comparable rates of surgical anesthesia (93.3%-100.0%; 95% confidence interval for the difference of the success rates: -2.3% to 17.9%). No intergroup differences were observed in block-related pain scores and adverse events. The DI group required fewer needle passes (median ± interquartile range: 4 ± 2 vs 7 ± 3; P < 0.0001) as well as shorter needling (8.4 ± 2.9 vs 10.7 ± 2.7 minutes; P < 0.0001) and performance (9.0 ± 3.2 vs 11.2 ± 3.0 minutes; P = 0.001) times. CONCLUSION: Although DI and TII ultrasound-guided supraclavicular blocks seem to provide comparable success rates, we cannot exclude the possibility that an intergroup difference of 17.9% might have gone undetected. Due to its quick onset, the TII technique results in a shorter total anesthesia-related time.

Prospective evaluation of the safety of ultrasound-guided cervical medial branch blocks using the in-plane technique.

BACKGROUND: While fluoroscopic guidance is currently the imaging standard for cervical medial branch blocks (CMBBs), ultrasound guidance (USG) offers several potential safety advantages such as real-time needle visualization and the ability to detect and avoid critical soft tissue vascular or neural structures. However, no large-scale trials have examined the safety of USG for CMBB. METHODS: Five hundred patients undergoing 2308 individual block levels were recruited using a prospective cohort design, and blocks were performed in an outpatient office setting using an in-plane USG technique. Primary outcomes included immediate block-related complication, as well as delayed occurrences, in the following 2 weeks. Vascular structures adjacent to the target area, as well as the occurrence of vascular breach, were recorded. RESULTS: Three minor immediate complications were noted (two subcutaneous hematomas, one vasovagal reaction) comprising 0.13% of blocks (0.03% to 0.38%; 95% two-sided CI), and no delayed events were recorded (0% to 0.16%; 97.5% one-sided CI). Blood vessels were detected and avoided in 8.2% of blocks, and vascular breach was noted in 0.52% of blocks (0.27% to 0.91%; 95% two-sided CI). CONCLUSION: When performed using an in-plane technique by experienced operators, USG CMBB was found to be safe, with rare minor immediate complications and no further adverse event reported in the following 2 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04852393.

A randomized comparison between bifurcation and prebifurcation subparaneural popliteal sciatic nerve blocks.

BACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, observer-blinded trial, we compared ultrasound-guided subparaneural popliteal sciatic nerve blocks performed either at or proximal to the neural bifurcation (B). We hypothesized that the total anesthesia-related time (sum of performance and onset times) would be decreased with the prebifurcation (PB) technique. METHODS: Ultrasound-guided posterior popliteal sciatic nerve block was performed in 68 patients. All subjects received an identical volume (30 mL) and mix of local anesthetic agent (1% lidocaine-0.25% bupivacaine-5 µg/mL epinephrine). In the PB group, the local anesthetic solution was deposited at the level of the common sciatic trunk, just distal to the intersection between its circular and elliptical sonographic appearances, inside the paraneural sheath. In the B group, the injection was performed inside the sheath between the tibial and peroneal divisions. A blinded observer recorded the success rate (complete tibial and peroneal sensory block at 30 minutes) and onset time. The performance time, number of needle passes, and adverse events (paresthesia, neural edema) were also recorded. All subjects were contacted 7 days after the surgery to inquire about the presence of persistent numbness or motor deficit. RESULTS: Both techniques resulted in comparable success rates (85%-88%; 95% confidence interval [CI] of the intergroup difference, -14% to 19%) and required similar performance times (8.1 minutes; 95% CI of the difference, -1.65 to 1.71 minutes), onset times (15.0-17.7 minutes; 95% CI of the difference, -7.65 to 2.31 minutes), and total anesthesia-related times (23.4-26.0 minutes; 95% CI of the difference, -7.83 to 2.74 minutes). The number of needle passes and incidence of paresthesia (25%-34%) were also similar between the 2 groups. Sonographic neural swelling was detected in 2 and 3 subjects in the PB and B groups, respectively. In all 5 cases, the needle was carefully withdrawn and the injection completed uneventfully. Patient follow-up 1 week after the surgery revealed 2 patients with residual numbness. In both instances, the latter had resolved by 1 month. CONCLUSION: When local anesthetic is injected inside the paraneural sheath, B and PB posterior popliteal sciatic nerve blocks result in comparable success and total anesthesia-related times. However, in light of the 95% CIs, we cannot exclude the possibility that an intergroup difference of 19% and 7.83 minutes might have gone undetected for success rate and total time, respectively.

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.

Intravenous butorphanol administration reduces intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

PURPOSE: Pruritus associated with intrathecal opioid administration is a common side effect. There is evidence that κ-opioid receptor agonists have antipruritic activity. Butorphanol has agonist actions at both κ-opioid and µ-opioid receptors. This study was designed to evaluate the antipruritic efficacy of butorphanol after intrathecal morphine administration in the setting of a randomized, double-blind study of parturients undergoing cesarean section. METHODS: Ninety-one women who received combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with 1.2 ml 0.5 % isobaric bupivacaine and 0.1 mg preservative-free morphine were included in this study. After delivery of the baby, the parturients were randomly allocated to two groups: butorphanol group (n = 46) and physiological saline group (n = 45). In the butorphanol group, parturients received an intravenous loading dose of 1 mg butorphanol followed by infusion of 0.2 mg/h butorphanol. The physiological saline group received an infusion of the same volume of physiological saline. The presence of pruritus, visual analog scores for pain, sedation scores, and adverse effects were recorded 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 h after intrathecal morphine administration. RESULTS: The incidence of pruritus at 24 h was significantly more frequent in the physiological saline group than in the butorphanol group (48.9 vs. 13.0 %, P < 0.001). The severity of pruritus was significantly greater in the saline group than in the butorphanol group 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 h after intrathecal morphine injection (P = 0.004, 0.001, 0.002, and 0.003, respectively). The visual analog scale scores at 24 h were significantly lower in the butorphanol group than in physiological saline group (P < 0.001). The Ramsay sedation score in the butorphanol group was significantly higher than that in the physiological saline group after 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 h (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in nausea/vomiting and other adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Administration of intravenous butorphanol after delivery of the baby can reduce pruritus that has been induced by intrathecal morphine administration in cesarean delivery with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.

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.

Incidental detection of bowel herniation with ultrasonography and fluoroscopy during a caudal block.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to fluoroscopy, ultrasonography allows visualization of structures such as muscles, tendons, vessels, and nerves. We describe a case where ultrasonography in conjunction with fluoroscopy led to the incidental diagnosis of bowel herniation in a patient undergoing a caudal block. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 71-yr-old woman presented to our chronic pain clinic with a long-standing history of coccydynia for which she had undergone a partial coccygectomy. A trial caudal block was planned. Fluoroscopy of the lower sacral area revealed the presence of a gas bubble inferoposteriorly to the coccygeal remnant. A confirmatory ultrasound scan revealed a hollow structure compatible with bowel. The procedure was abandoned. Subsequently, a non-enhanced computed tomographic scan of the pelvis confirmed the diagnosis of large bowel herniation. The patient was referred to a colorectal surgeon, and she subsequently underwent successful laparoscopic repair of the coccygeal hernia. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography can be a valuable adjunct in identifying non-neural pathologies in patients undergoing interventional procedures in chronic pain management. This case report highlights the importance of being vigilant for unanticipated pathologies during ultrasound examinations while performing chronic pain block procedures.

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.

Lumbar spinal stenosis: a brief review of the nonsurgical management.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this brief narrative review is to summarize the evidence derived from randomized controlled trials pertaining to the nonsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). SOURCE: The MEDLINE (January 1950 to the fourth week of January 2010) and EMBASE (January 1980 to 2009, week 53) databases, the MESH term "spinal stenosis", and the key words, "vertebral canal stenosis" and "neurogenic claudication", were searched. Results were limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted on human subjects, written in English, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Only RCTs pertaining to nonsurgical treatment were considered. Studies comparing conservative and surgical management or different surgical techniques were not included in the review. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The search criteria yielded 13 RCTs. The average enrolment was 54 subjects per study. Blinded assessment and sample size justification were provided in 85% and 39% of RCTs, respectively. The available evidence suggests that parenteral calcitonin, but not intranasal calcitonin, can transiently decrease pain in patients with LSS. In the setting of epidural blocks, local anesthetics can improve pain and function, but the benefits seem short-lived. The available evidence does not support the addition of steroids to local anesthetic agents. Based on the limited evidence, passive physical therapy seems to provide minimal benefits in LSS. The optimal regimen for active physiotherapy remains unknown. Although benefits have been reported with gabapentin, limaprost, methylcobalamin, and epidural adhesiolysis, further trials are required to validate these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Because of their variable quality, published RCTs can provide only limited evidence to formulate recommendations pertaining to the nonsurgical treatment of LSS. In this narrative review, no study was excluded based on factors such as sample size justification, statistical power, blinding, definition of intervention allocation, or clinical outcomes. This aspect may represent a limitation as it may serve to overemphasize evidence derived from "weaker" trials. Further well-designed RCTs are warranted.

Treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: a review of the evidence.

PURPOSE: This narrative review summarizes the evidence derived from randomized controlled trials pertaining to the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). SOURCE: Using the MEDLINE (January 1950 to April 2009) and EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2009) databases, the following medical subject headings (MeSH) were searched: "Complex Regional Pain Syndrome", "Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy", and "causalgia" as well as the key words "algodystrophy", "Sudeck's atrophy", "shoulder hand syndrome", "neurodystrophy", "neuroalgodystrophy", "reflex neuromuscular dystrophy", and "posttraumatic dystrophy". Results were limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted on human subjects, written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, and pertinent to treatment. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The search criteria yielded 41 RCTs with a mean of 31.7 subjects per study. Blinded assessment and sample size justification were provided in 70.7% and 19.5% of RCTs, respectively. Only biphosphonates appear to offer clear benefits for patients with CRPS. Improvement has been reported with dimethyl sulfoxide, steroids, epidural clonidine, intrathecal baclofen, spinal cord stimulation, and motor imagery programs, but further trials are required. The available evidence does not support the use of calcitonin, vasodilators, or sympatholytic and neuromodulative intravenous regional blockade. Clear benefits have not been reported with stellate/lumbar sympathetic blocks, mannitol, gabapentin, and physical/occupational therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Published RCTs can only provide limited evidence to formulate recommendations for treatment of CRPS. In this review, no study was excluded based on factors such as sample size justification, statistical power, blinding, definition of intervention allocation, or clinical outcomes. Thus, evidence derived from "weaker" trials may be overemphasized. Further well-designed RCTs are warranted.

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.

Ultrasound-guided L5 dorsal ramus block: validation of a novel technique.

BACKGROUND: Although the value of ultrasound-guided (USG) lumbar medial branch blocks (MBB) has previously been examined in several clinical trials, blocking the L5 dorsal ramus (DR) remains a technical challenge and we sought to examine the accuracy of a novel technique targeting this level. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 115 patients scheduled for an L4 MBB and L5 DR block underwent an ultrasound scan to assess their lower spine sonoanatomy. Subjects in whom the necessary landmarks could be visualized underwent a USG L5 DR block using a pivot technique, which involved redirecting a needle from its position on the L5 transverse process after an L4 MBB. Success was determined by a blinded observer who examined the contrast distribution on postprocedural X-ray images. In addition to the final needle position, performance time, the number of needle passes, and any complication were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients had a USG block and 15 patients (13%) were excluded because of poor landmark visibility. The latter group presented a significantly higher body mass index (38.90±7.50 vs 26.31±4.25 kg/m2, p=0.004). A total of five failures were noted (95% success rate), this included three patients with transitional anatomy in whom needles were placed at the wrong level and two cases of incomplete contrast coverage possibly related to the partial intravascular injection. Performance time was 153.93±41.56 s and the median number of needle passes was 2 (range 4). No significant complications were noted. CONCLUSION: The pivot technique provides a reliable approach for USG L5 DR ramus blocks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03805906.