General anesthesia is an acceptable choice for hip fracture surgery.

The debate over the optimal type of anesthesia for hip fracture surgery continues to rage. While retrospective evidence in elective total joint arthroplasty has suggested a reduction in complications with neuraxial anesthesia, previous retrospective studies in the hip fracture population have been mixed. Recently, two multicenter randomized, controlled trials (REGAIN and RAGA) have been published that examined delirium, ambulation at 60 days, and mortality in patients with hip fractures who were randomized to spinal or general anesthesia. These trials enrolled a combined 2,550 patients and found that spinal anesthesia did not confer a mortality benefit nor a reduction in delirium or greater proportion who could ambulate at 60 days. While these trials were not perfect, they call into question the practice of telling patients that spinal anesthesia is a "safer" choice for their hip fracture surgery. We believe a risk/benefit discussion should take place with each patient and that ultimately the patient should choose his or her anesthesia type after being informed of the state of the evidence. General anesthesia is an acceptable choice for hip fracture surgery.

Non-Fellowship regional anesthesia training and assessment: an international Delphi study on a consensus curriculum.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While there are several published recommendations and guidelines for trainees undertaking subspecialty Fellowships in regional anesthesia, a similar document describing a core regional anesthesia curriculum for non-fellowship trainees is less well defined. We aimed to produce an international consensus for the training and teaching of regional anesthesia that is applicable for the majority of worldwide anesthesiologists. METHODS: This anonymous, electronic Delphi study was conducted over two rounds and distributed to current and immediate past (within 5 years) directors of regional anesthesia training worldwide. The steering committee formulated an initial list of items covering nerve block techniques, learning objectives and skills assessment and volume of practice, relevant to a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Participants scored these items in order of importance using a 10-point Likert scale, with free-text feedback. Strong consensus items were defined as highest importance (score ≥8) by ≥70% of all participants. RESULTS: 469 participants/586 invitations (80.0% response) scored in round 1, and 402/469 participants (85.7% response) scored in round 2. Participants represented 66 countries. Strong consensus was reached for 8 core peripheral and neuraxial blocks and 17 items describing learning objectives and skills assessment. Volume of practice for peripheral blocks was uniformly 16-20 blocks per anatomical region, while ≥50 neuraxial blocks were considered minimum. CONCLUSIONS: This international consensus study provides specific information for designing a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Implementation of a standardized curriculum has benefits for patient care through improving quality of training and quality of nerve blocks.

Statistically significant but clinically unimportant: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the analgesic benefits of erector spinae plane block following breast cancer surgery.

The novel erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been reported to provide important postoperative analgesic benefits following a variety of truncal and abdominal surgical procedures. However, evidence of its analgesic efficacy following breast cancer surgery, compared with parenteral analgesia, is unclear. This meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic benefits of adding ESPB to parenteral analgesia following breast cancer surgery.Databases were searched for breast tumor resection trials comparing ESPB to parenteral analgesia. The two co-primary outcomes examined were 24-hour postoperative oral morphine equivalent consumption and area-under-curve of rest pain scores. We considered reductions equivalent to 3.3 cm.h and 30 mg oral morphine in the first 24 hours postoperatively for the two co-primary outcomes, respectively, to be clinically important. We also assessed opioid-related side effects and long-term outcomes, including health-related quality of life, persistent postsurgical pain and opioid dependence. Results were pooled using random effects modeling.Twelve trials (699 patients) were analyzed. Moderate quality evidence suggested that ESPB decreased 24-hour morphine consumption and area-under-curve of rest pain by a mean difference (95% CI) of -17.60 mg (-24.27 to -10.93) and -2.74 cm.h (-3.09 to -2.39), respectively; but these differences were not clinically important. High-quality evidence suggested that ESPB decreased opioid-related side effects compared with parenteral analgesia by an OR (95% CI) of 0.43 (0.28 to 0.66). None of the studies evaluated long-term block benefits.Adding ESPB to parenteral analgesia provides statistically significant but clinically unimportant short-term benefits following breast cancer surgery. Current evidence does not support routine use of ESPB. Given the very modest short-term benefits and risk of complications, the block should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Association between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery in adults and clinical outcomes: population based comparative effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia and clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and readmission in adults undergoing lower limb revascularisation surgery. DESIGN: Comparative effectiveness study using linked, validated, population based databases. SETTING: Ontario, Canada, 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2015. PARTICIPANTS: 20 988 patients Ontario residents aged 18 years or older who underwent their first lower limb revascularisation surgery in hospitals performing 50 or more of these surgeries annually. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was 30 day all cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital cardiopulmonary and renal complications, length of hospital stay, and 30 day readmissions. Multivariable, mixed effects regression models, adjusting for patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics, were used to estimate associations between anaesthetic technique and outcomes. Robustness of analyses were evaluated by conducting instrumental variable, propensity score matched, and survival sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Of 20 988 patients who underwent lower limb revascularisation surgery, 6453 (30.7%) received neuraxial anaesthesia and 14 535 (69.3%) received general anaesthesia. The percentage of neuraxial anaesthesia use ranged from 0.6% to 90.6% across included hospitals. Furthermore, use of neuraxial anaesthesia declined by 17% over the study period. Death within 30 days occurred in 204 (3.2%) patients who received neuraxial anaesthesia and 646 (4.4%) patients who received general anaesthesia. After multivariable, multilevel adjustment, use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with use of general anaesthesia was associated with decreased 30 day mortality (absolute risk reduction 0.72%, 95% confidence interval 0.65% to 0.79%; odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.83; number needed to treat to prevent one death=139). A similar direction and magnitude of association was found in instrumental variable, propensity score matched, and survival analyses. Use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with use of general anaesthesia was also associated with decreased in-hospital cardiopulmonary and renal complications (odds ratio 0.73, 0.63 to 0.85) and a reduced length of hospital stay (-0.5 days, -0.3 to-0.6 days). CONCLUSIONS: Use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery was associated with decreased 30 day mortality and hospital length of stay. These findings might have been related to reduced cardiopulmonary and renal complications after neuraxial anaesthesia and support the increased use of neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing these surgeries until the results of a large, confirmatory randomised trial become available.

Survey of international regional anesthesia fellowship directors.

BACKGROUND: The scope of regional anesthesia fellowship programs has not been analyzed but may provide insights that could improve fellowship training and standards. METHODS: Regional anesthesia fellowship directors across the world were asked to complete a comprehensive survey that detailed the range of educational and practical experience and attitudes as well as assessment procedures offered in their programs. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 66% (45/68). Overall, the range of activities and the time and resources committed to education during fellowships is encouraging. A wide range of nerve block experience is reported with most programs also offering acute pain management, research, and teaching opportunities. Only two-thirds of fellowships provide formal feedback. This feedback is typically a formative assessment. CONCLUSION: This is the first survey of regional anesthesia fellowship directors, and it illustrates the international scope and continuing expansion of education and training in the field. The results should be of interest to program directors seeking to benchmark and improve their educational programs and to faculty involved in further curriculum development.