0.25% bupivacaine-1% lidocaine vs 0.5% bupivacaine for ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In an effort to shorten onset time, a common practice is to add lidocaine to bupivacaine. In the setting of infraclavicular block, it is unclear what the block characteristics of this practice are compared with bupivacaine alone. We hypothesized that bupivacaine alone increases the duration of motor block, sensory block, and postoperative analgesia while resulting in a slower onset time compared with a bupivacaine and lidocaine mixture. METHODS: 40 patients receiving ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block were randomly assigned to receive either 35 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 1% lidocaine or 0.5% bupivacaine, both associated with perineural adjuvants (epinephrine 5 µg/mL and dexamethasone 4 mg). After the block was performed, a blinded observer evaluated the success of the block, the onset time, and the incidence of surgical anesthesia. Postoperatively, a blinded observer contacted patients who had successful blocks to inquire about the duration of motor block, sensory block, postoperative analgesia, and the presence of rebound pain. RESULTS: When comparing patients having bupivacaine alone versus bupivacaine and lidocaine, the mean (SD) motor block duration was 28.4 (5.2) vs 18.9 (3.1) hours, respectively; the mean difference 9.5 hours (95% CI 6.5 to 12.4; p<0.001); the mean (SD) sensory block duration was 29.3 (5.8) vs 18.7 (4.0) hours, respectively; the mean difference 10.6 hours (95% CI 7.1 to 14.0; p<0.001); the mean (SD) postoperative analgesia duration was 38.3 (7.4) vs 24.3 (6.6) hours, respectively; the mean difference 14 hours (95% CI 9.2 to 18.8; p<0.001); and the median (IQR) onset time was 35 (15) vs 20 (10) min, respectively; p<0.001. No other significant differences were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with mixed bupivacaine-lidocaine, 0.5% bupivacaine significantly prolongs sensorimotor block and postoperative analgesia at the expense of a delayed onset time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05834023.

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.

Gonyautoxins 2/3 Local Periarticular Injection for Pain Management after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Double-Blind, Randomized Study.

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of periarticular infiltration of gonyautoxin 2/3 (GTX 2/3) and a mixture of levobupivacaine, ketorolac, and epinephrine for pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Forty-eight patients were randomly allocated to receive periarticular infiltration of 40 µg GTX 2/3 (n = 24) diluted in 30 mL of sodium chloride 0.9% (study group) or a combination of 300 mg of levobupivacaine, 1 mg of epinephrine, and 60 mg ketorolac (n = 24) diluted in 150 mL of sodium chloride 0.9% (control group). Intraoperative anesthetic and surgical techniques were identical for both groups. Postoperatively, all patients received patient-controlled analgesia (morphine bolus of 1 mg; lockout interval of 8 minutes), acetaminophen, and ketoprofen for 72 hours. A blinded investigator recorded morphine consumption, which was the primary outcome. Also, the range of motion (ROM) and static and dynamic pain were assessed at 6, 12, 36, and 60 hours after surgery. The incidence of adverse events, time to readiness for discharge, and length of hospital stay were also recorded. The median of total cumulative morphine consumption was 16 mg (range, 0-62 mg) in the GTX 2/3 group and 9 mg (range, 0-54 mg) in control group, which did not reach statistical difference (median test, p = 0.40). Furthermore, static and dynamic pain scores were similar at all time intervals. GTX 2/3 was inferior in range of motion at 6 and 12 hours; nevertheless, we noted no difference after 36 hours. No differences between groups were found in terms of complications, side effects, or length of hospital stay. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of breakthrough morphine requirement. However, local anesthetic use resulted in an increased ROM in the first 12 hours. This prospective randomized clinical trial shows that GTX 2/3 is a safe and efficient drug for pain control after TKA; nevertheless, more studies using GTX 2/3 with larger populations are needed to confirm the safety profile and efficiency. This is level 1 therapeutic study, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

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.

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.

Motor-sparing nerve blocks for total knee replacement: A scoping review.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This scoping review investigates the optimal combination of motor-sparing analgesic interventions for patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR). DESIGN: Scoping review. INTERVENTION: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched (inception-last week of May 2020). Only trials including motor-sparing interventions were included. Randomized controlled trials lacking prospective registration and blinded assessment were excluded. MAIN RESULTS: The cumulative evidence suggests that femoral triangle blocks outperform placebo and periarticular infiltration. When combined with the latter, femoral triangle blocks are associated with improved pain control, higher patient satisfaction and decreased opioid consumption. Continuous femoral triangle blocks provide superior postoperative analgesia compared with their single-injection counterparts. However, these benefits seem less pronounced when perineural adjuvants are used. Combined femoral triangle-obturator blocks result in improved analgesia and swifter discharge compared with femoral triangle blocks alone. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal analgesic strategy for TKR may include a combination of different analgesic modalities (periarticular infiltration, femoral triangle blocks, obturator nerve block). Future trials are required to investigate the incremental benefits provided by local anesthetic infiltration between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the knee (IPACK), popliteal plexus block and genicular nerve block.

Erector spinae plane block: A narrative review with systematic analysis of the evidence pertaining to clinical indications and alternative truncal blocks.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This narrative review discusses the anatomy, mechanism of action, techniques, pharmacology, indications, complications and substitutes for erector spinae plane (ESP) blocks. INTERVENTIONS: The Medline, Embase and Google Scholar databases (inception-last week of April 2020) were searched. For indications and alternative blocks, a systematic analysis of the available evidence was carried out. In order to highlight the best evidence available, only randomized trials with prospective registration, blinded assessment and sample size justification were retained for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: The collective body of anatomical studies suggests that ESP block may work through a combination of different mechanisms (e.g., local anesthetic spread to the thoracic paravertebral space, epidural space, and dorsal ramus). Compared to control, the available evidence suggests that ESP block results in decreased postoperative pain and opioid requirement for a wide array of thoracic and abdominal surgical interventions. Erector spinae plane blocks and thoracic paravertebral blocks seem to provide comparable benefits for thoracoscopic and breast cancer surgery when performed with a similar number of injections. Currently, ESP blocks should be favored over intercostal blocks since, at best, the latter provide similar analgesia to ESP blocks despite requiring multiple-level injections. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, ESP blocks have become the topic of considerable clinical interest. Future trials are required to investigate their optimal technique, dose of local anesthetic and perineural adjuvants. Moreover, additional investigation should compare ESP blocks with robust multimodal analgesic regimens as well as truncal blocks such as thoracic epidural block, midpoint transverse process to pleura block, PECS block, quadratus lumborum block, and transversus abdominis plane block.

Lumbar plexus block versus suprainguinal fascia iliaca block for total hip arthroplasty: A single-blinded, randomized trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Comparison of ultrasound-guided lumbar plexus block (LPB) and suprainguinal fascia iliaca block (SIFIB) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). DESIGN: Randomized equivalence trial. SETTING: University Hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty patients undergoing primary THA. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive ultrasound-guided LPB (n = 30) or SIFIB (n = 30). The local anesthetic agent (40 mL of levobupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 µg/mL) and block adjuvant (4 mg of intravenous dexamethasone) were identical in all subjects. Postoperatively, all patients received patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (morphine) as well as acetaminophen and ketoprofen during 48 h. MEASUREMENTS: A blinded investigator recorded morphine consumption at 24 and 48 h as well as time to first morphine request, pain scores at 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h, incidence of adverse events, time to readiness for discharge, and length of hospital stay. The blinded investigator also carried out sensorimotor block assessment at 3, 6 and 24 h using a 10-point sensorimotor composite scale. MAIN RESULTS: No intergroup differences were found in terms of cumulative morphine consumption at 24 h (95% CI: -4.0 mg to 2.0 mg) and 48 h (95% CI, -5.0 mg to 2.0 mg) or time to first morphine request. Furthermore, pain scores were similar at all time intervals after 3 h. There were no intergroup differences in terms of composite sensorimotor scores at 3 and 6 h. However, SIFIB lasted longer than lumbar plexus block as evidenced by a higher composite score at 24 h. No intergroup differences were found in terms of complications. Compared with LPB, SIFIB was associated with shorter time to readiness for discharge (3 [1-4] vs. 2 [1-3] days; P = 0.042) and length of hospital stay (3 [2-5] vs. 3 [2-4] days; P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: For THA, no differences were found between LPB and SIFIB in terms of breakthrough morphine requirement and pain control. However, SIFIB resulted in a longer block and was associated with shorter time to readiness for discharge as well as decreased hospital stay.

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.

Recomendaciones para la ejecución de anestesia regional no obstétrica en perioperatorio de pacientes COVID-19 / Recommendations for the execution of non-obstetric regional anesthesia in treatment of COVID-19 patients

En diciembre de 2019, surgió una serie de casos de neumonía causada por un nuevo coronavirus, denominado 2019-nCoV o SARS-CoV2. La propagación del virus ha sido extremadamente rápida y la organización mundial de la salud declaró a la enfermedad COVID-19, causada por 2019-nCoV, como una pandemia. En este contexto la Sociedad de Anestesiología de Chile (SACH) ha elaborado recomendaciones generales para el manejo perioperatorio de los pacientes sospechosos y/o portadores de la enfermedad. Sin embargo, dado que durante el levantamiento de evidencia para la confección de dicha guía se objetivó la ausencia de sugerencias específicas para la ejecución de técnicas de anestesia regional fuera del ambiente obstétrico, se solicitó desde el Comité Científico de SACH al Comité de Anestesia Regional de SACH (CARSACH), representante LASRA (LatinAmerican Society of Regional Anesthesia) en Chile, a través de un grupo de expertos, confeccionar recomendaciones locales en esta materia.