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.

Artificial intelligence in ophthalmology.

One of the fields of medicine in which artificial intelligence techniques have made progress is ophthalmology. Artificial intelligence (A.I.) applications for preventing vision loss in eye illnesses have developed quickly. Artificial intelligence uses computer programs to execute various activities while mimicking human thought. Machine learning techniques are frequently utilized in the field of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology holds great promise for advancing artificial intelligence, thanks to various digital methods like optical coherence tomography (OCT) and visual field testing. Artificial intelligence has been used in ophthalmology to treat eye conditions impairing vision, including macular holes (M.H.), age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, and cataracts. The more common occurrence of these diseases has led to artificial intelligence development. It is important to get annual screenings to detect eye diseases such as glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, and age-related macular degeneration. These conditions can cause decreased visual acuity, and it is necessary to identify any changes or progression in the disease to receive appropriate treatment. Numerous studies have been conducted based on artificial intelligence using different algorithms to improve and simplify current medical practice and for early detection of eye diseases to prevent vision loss. Abbreviations: AI = artificial intelligence, AMD = age-related macular degeneration, ANN = artificial neural networks, AAO = American Academy of Ophthalmology, CNN = convolutional neural network, DL = deep learning, DVP = deep vascular plexus, FDA = Food and Drug Administration, GCL = ganglion cell layer, IDP = Iowa Detection Program, ML = Machine learning techniques, MH = macular holes, MTANN = massive training of the artificial neural network, NLP = natural language processing methods, OCT = optical coherence tomography, RBS = Radial Basis Function, RNFL = nerve fiber layer, ROP = Retinopathy of Prematurity, SAP = standard automated perimetry, SVP = Superficial vascular plexus, U.S. = United States, VEGF = vascular endothelial growth factor.

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.

Is Supraclavicular Block as Good as Interscalene Block for Acute Pain Control Following Shoulder Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Interscalene block (ISB) is the acute pain management technique of choice for shoulder surgery, but its undesirable respiratory side effects have prompted seeking alternatives. Supraclavicular block (SCB) is proposed as an ISB alternative, but evidence of comparative analgesic and respiratory-sparing effects is inconsistent. We compared the analgesic and respiratory effects of SCB and ISB for shoulder surgery. METHODS: Trials comparing ISB to SCB for shoulder surgery were sought. We decided a priori that SCB would be an acceptable alternative if it were noninferior for (1) postoperative 24-hour cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption (primary outcome, noninferiority margin Δ = -25 mg) and (2) postoperative pain (secondary outcome, noninferiority margin Δ = 4.0 cm·hour); and superior for (3) postblock respiratory dysfunction (primary outcome). Opioid-related side effects and block-related complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (1065 patients) were analyzed. In single-injection blocks, SCB was noninferior to ISB for 24-hour morphine consumption (mean difference for SCB-ISB, MD [95% confidence interval {CI}] = -3.11 mg [-9.42 to 3.19], Δ = -25 mg); it was also noninferior for 24-hour pain scores (MD = 0.78 cm·hour [0.07-1.49], Δ = 4.0 cm·hour); and decreased the odds of respiratory dysfunction (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI] = 0.08 [0.01-0.68]). Similarly, in continuous blocks, SCB was noninferior to ISB for 24-hour morphine consumption (MD = 0.46 mg [-6.08 to 5.15], Δ = -25 mg), and decreased the odds of respiratory dysfunction (OR = 0.22 [0.08-0.57]). SCB also decreased odds of minor block-related complications (OR = 0.36 [0.20-0.68] and OR = 0.25 [0.15-0.41] for single-injection and continuous blocks, respectively). Consequently, the null joint-hypothesis was rejected, and SCB can be considered an acceptable alternative to ISB. CONCLUSIONS: For acute pain control following shoulder surgery, high-quality evidence indicates that SCB can be used as an effective ISB alternative. SCB is noninferior for postoperative opioid consumption and acute pain, and it reduces the odds of postblock respiratory dysfunction.

Pain management within an enhanced recovery program after thoracic surgery.

Evidence for ERAS within thoracic surgery (ERATS) is building. The key to enabling early recovery and ambulation is ensuring that postoperative pain is well controlled. Surgery on the chest is considered to be one of the most painful of surgical procedures for both open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches. Increasing use of MIS and improved perioperative care pathways has resulted in shorter length of stay (LOS), requiring patients to achieve optimal pain control earlier and meet discharge criteria sooner, sometimes on the same day as surgery. This requires optimizing pain control earlier in the postoperative recovery phase in order to enable ambulation and a better recovery profile, as well as to minimize the risk for development of chronic persistent postoperative pain (CPPP). This review will focus on the options for pain management protocols within an ERAS program for thoracic surgery patients (ERATS).

Single-dose haloperidol for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after intrathecal morphine.

UNLABELLED: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurs frequently with the use of intrathecal morphine. We studied the ability of a single, small dose of the inexpensive, long-acting, dopamine receptor-blocking drug, haloperidol, to prevent PONV after spinal anesthesia using local anesthetic with morphine 0.3 mg. One-hundred-eight adult patients undergoing elective lower limb orthopedic or endoscopic urologic procedures under spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive IM haloperidol 1 mg (H1), haloperidol 2 mg (H2), or placebo (P) after an intrathecal injection. Patients were assessed for 24 h after surgery, with treatment failure being defined as nausea >1 on a 10-cm visual analog scale or any vomiting or request for rescue antiemetic. Most treatment failures occurred during the first 12 h (60% overall), and haloperidol led to a dose-dependent decrease in PONV (first 12 h: 76% P, 56% H1, and 50% H2; P = 0.012). A history of PONV was strongly associated with PONV in the current study, regardless of treatment group. There were no dystonic reactions noted to either dose of haloperidol. We conclude that haloperidol reduces the incidence of PONV after intrathecal morphine, although this incidence remains a significant problem even with treatment. IMPLICATIONS: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, a single, small IM dose of haloperidol 1 mg or 2 mg reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after spinal anesthesia with local anesthetic and intrathecal morphine.