Infectious complications following regional anesthesia: a narrative review and contemporary estimates of risk.

INTRODUCTION: Infectious complications following regional anesthesia (RA) while rare, can be devastating. The objective of this review was to estimate the risk of infectious complications following central neuraxial blocks (CNB) such as epidural anesthesia (EA), spinal anesthesia (SA) and combined spinal epidural (CSE), and peripheral nerve blocks (PNB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify reference studies reporting infectious complications in the context of RA subtypes. Both prospective and retrospective studies providing incidence of infectious complications were included for review to provide pooled estimates (with 95% CI). Additionally, we explored incidences specifically associated with spinal anesthesia, incidences of central nervous system (CNS) infections and, the incidences of overall and CNS infections following CNB in obstetric population. RESULTS: The pooled estimate of overall infectious complications following all CNB was 9/100 000 (95% CI: 5, 13/100 000). CNS infections following all CNB was estimated to be 2/100 000 (95% CI: 1, 3/100 000) and even rarer following SA (1/100 000 (95% CI: 1, 2/100 000)). Obstetric population had a lower rate of overall (1/100 000 (95% CI: 1, 3/100 000)) and CNS infections (4 per million (95% CI: 0.3, 1/100 000)) following all CNB. For PNB catheters, the reported rate of infectious complications was 1.8% (95% CI: 1.2, 2.5/100). DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that the risk of overall infectious complications following neuraxial anesthesia is very rare and the rate of CNS infections is even rarer. The infectious complications following PNB catheters seems significantly higher compared with CNB. Standardizing nomenclature and better reporting methodologies are needed for the better estimation of the infectious complications.

Loss-of-Resistance Versus Dynamic Pressure-Sensing Technology for Successful Placement of Thoracic Epidural Catheters: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The traditional loss-of-resistance (LOR) technique for thoracic epidural catheter placement can be associated with a high primary failure rate. In this study, we compared the traditional LOR technique and dynamic pressure-sensing (DPS) technology for primary success rate and secondary outcomes pertinent to identifying the thoracic epidural space. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded superiority trial enrolled patients ages 18 to 75 years, scheduled for major thoracic or abdominal surgeries at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Anesthesiology trainees (residents and fellows) placed thoracic epidural catheters under faculty supervision and rescue. The primary outcome was the success rate of thoracic epidural catheter placement, evaluated by the loss of cold sensation in the thoracic dermatomes 20 minutes after injecting the epidural test dose. Secondary outcomes included procedural time, ease of catheter placement, the presence of a positive falling meniscus sign, early hemodynamic changes, and unintended dural punctures. Additionally, we explored outcomes that included number of attempts, needle depth to epidural space, need for faculty to rescue the procedure from the trainee, patient-rated procedural discomfort, pain at the epidural insertion site, postoperative pain scores, and opioid consumption over 48 hours. RESULTS: Between March 2019 and June 2020, 133 patients were enrolled; 117 were included in the final analysis (n = 57 for the LOR group; n = 60 for the DPS group). The primary success rate of epidural catheter placement was 91.2% (52 of 57) in the LOR group and 96.7% (58 of 60) in the DPS group (95% confidence interval [CI] of difference in proportions: -0.054 [-0.14 to 0.03]; P = .264). No difference was observed in procedural time between the 2 groups (median interquartile range [IQR] in minutes: LOR 5.0 [7.0], DPS 5.5 [7.0]; P = .982). The number of patients with epidural analgesia onset at 10 minutes was 49.1% (28 of 57) in the LOR group compared to 31.7% (19 of 60) in the DPS group (P = .062). There were 2 cases of unintended dural punctures in each group. Other secondary or exploratory outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial did not establish the superiority of the DPS technique over the traditional LOR method for identifying the thoracic epidural space (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03826186).

Neurological injury following peripheral nerve blocks: a narrative review of estimates of risks and the influence of ultrasound guidance.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve injury or post-block neurological dysfunction (PBND) are uncommon but a recognized complications of peripheral nerve blocks (PNB). A broad range of its incidence is noted in the literature and hence a critical appraisal of its occurrence is needed. OBJECTIVE: In this review, we wanted to know the pooled estimates of PBND and further, determine its pooled estimates following various PNB over time. Additionally, we also sought to estimate the incidence of PBND with or without US guidance. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A literature search was conducted in six databases. For the purposes of the review, we defined PBND as any new-onset sensorimotor disturbances in the distribution of the performed PNB either attributable to the PNB (when reported) or reported in the context of the PNB (when association with a PNB was not mentioned). Both prospective and retrospective studies which provided incidence of PBND at timepoints of interest (>48 hours to <2 weeks; >2 weeks to 6 weeks, 7 weeks to 5 months, 6 months to 1 year and >1 year durations) were included for review. Incidence data were used to provide pooled estimates (with 95% CI) of PBND at these time periods. Similar estimates were obtained to know the incidence of PBND with or without the use of US guidance. Additionally, PBND associated with individual PNB were obtained in a similar fashion with upper and lower limb PNB classified based on the anatomical location of needle insertion. FINDINGS: The overall incidence of PBND decreased with time, with the incidence being approximately 1% at <2 weeks' time (Incidence per thousand (95% CI)= 9 (8; to 11)) to approximately 3/10 000 at 1 year (Incidence per thousand (95% CI)= 0. 3 (0.1; to 0.5)). Incidence of PBND differed for individual PNB with the highest incidence noted for interscalene block. CONCLUSIONS: Our review adds information to existing literature that the neurological complications are rarer but seem to display a higher incidence for some blocks more than others. Use of US guidance may be associated with a lower incidence of PBND especially in those PNBs reporting a higher pooled estimates. Future studies need to standardize the reporting of PBND at various timepoints and its association to PNB.

The Use of Pectoralis Blocks in Breast Surgery: A Practice Advisory and Narrative Review from the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA).

Although pectoralis (PECS) blocks are commonly used for breast surgery, recommendations regarding the efficacy of these blocks have thus far not been developed by any professional anesthesia society. Given the potential impact of PECS blocks on analgesia after outpatient breast surgery, The Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) convened a task force to develop a practice advisory on the use of this analgesic technique. In this practice advisory, we compare the efficacy of PECS blocks with systemic analgesia, local infiltration anesthesia, and paravertebral blockade. Our objectives were to advise on two clinical questions. (1) Does PECS-1 and/or -2 blockade provide more effective analgesia for breast-conserving surgery than either systemic analgesics or surgeon-provided local infiltration anesthesia? (2) Does PECS-1 and/or -2 blockade provide equivalent analgesia for mastectomy compared with a paravertebral block (PVB)? Among patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery, PECS blocks moderately reduce postoperative opioid use, prolong time to analgesic rescue, and decrease postoperative pain scores when compared with systemic analgesics. SAMBA recommends the use of a PECS-1 or -2 blockade in the absence of systemic analgesia (Strength of Recommendation A). No evidence currently exists that strongly favors the use of PECS blocks over surgeon-performed local infiltration in this surgical population. SAMBA cannot recommend PECS blocks over surgical infiltration (Strength of Recommendation C). For patients undergoing a mastectomy, a PECS block may provide an opioid-sparing effect similar to that achieved with PVB; SAMBA recommends the use of a PECS block if a patient is unable to receive a PVB (Strength of Recommendation A).

Strategies for daily operating room management of ambulatory surgery centers following resolution of the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We performed a narrative review to explore the economics of daily operating room management decisions for ambulatory surgery centers following resolution of the acute phase of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. It is anticipated that there will be a substantive fraction of patients who will be contagious, but asymptomatic at the time of surgery. Use multimodal perioperative infection control practices (e.g., including patient decontamination) and monitor performance (e.g., S. aureus transmission from patient to the environment). The consequence of COVID-19 is that such processes are more important than ever to follow because infection affects not only patients but the surgery center staff and surgeons. Dedicate most operating rooms to procedures that are not airway aerosol producing and can be performed without general anesthesia. Increase throughput by performing nerve blocks before patients enter the operating rooms. Bypass the phase I post-anesthesia care unit whenever possible by appropriate choices of anesthetic approach and drugs. Plan long-duration workdays (e.g., 12-h). For cases where the surgical procedure does not cause aerosol production, but general anesthesia will be used, have initial (phase I) post-anesthesia recovery in the operating room where the surgery was done. Use anesthetic practices that achieve fast initial recovery of the brief ambulatory cases. When the surgical procedure causes aerosol production (e.g., bronchoscopy), conduct phase I recovery in the operating room and use multimodal environmental decontamination after each case. Use statistical methods to plan for the resulting long turnover times. Whenever possible, have the anesthesia and nursing teams stagger cases in more than one room so that they are doing one surgical case while the other room is being cleaned. In conclusion, this review shows that while COVID-19 is prevalent, it will markedly affect daily ambulatory workflow for patients undergoing general anesthesia, with potentially substantial economic impact for some surgical specialties.

Comparison of the effect of three different adjuvants on the analgesic duration of single injection interscalene brachial plexus block: a prospective, randomized, triple blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Use of regional anesthesia can result in faster recovery and better patient satisfaction. Addition of perineural adjuncts to local anesthetics may improve the duration of analgesia, but there is a paucity of data comparing them in a single randomized trial. We compared the effects of three adjuncts clonidine, dexamethasone, and buprenorphine, on the duration of analgesia of interscalene brachial plexus block. METHODS: 160 patients, undergoing elective shoulder surgery, were randomized to four groups to receive an interscalene block with one of the following solutions: ropivacaine alone, ropivacaine with clonidine 75 µg, ropivacaine with dexamethasone 8 mg, or ropivacaine with buprenorphine 300 µg. The primary outcome variable was the duration of analgesia; secondary outcome measures were time to onset of the block, and the duration of sensory and motor blocks. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the total analgesia time among the four groups; p=0.11. The pairwise comparison in analgesic time and 99% CI were: control versus clonidine (-1.94 hours (-7.33 to 3.12)), control versus dexamethasone (-4.16 hours (-9.50 to 0.58)) and control versus buprenorphine (-1.1 hours (-5.34 to 3.23)). There was no differences in block set-up time, or total sensory and motor block duration among the groups. CONCLUSION: There was no significant improvement in the duration of analgesia with addition of any of the three adjuncts to interscalene blocks. However, there was a larger than expected variability in patient response, hence the study may have been underpowered for the primary outcome.