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.

[Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis : frequent questions in the perioperative setting]. / Antibioprophylaxie chirurgicale: questions fréquentes en périopératoire.

Surgical Site Infections account for 15-30% of healthcare-associated infections. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is one of well-documented measures to decrease the risk of infections. However, many situations threaten its proper application and thereby its effectiveness: patient already receiving antibiotics or carrying resistant germs, clinicians' misunderstanding about timing and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis or patient history of penicillin allergy. In this article we try to clarify these situations to favour good practice in perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis.

Les infections du site opératoire représentent 15-30 % des infections associées aux soins et l'antibioprophylaxie chirurgicale est l'une des mesures bien documentées pour en diminuer le risque. Cependant, de nombreuses situations prétéritent l'application adéquate de cette mesure et donc son efficacité : présence d'une antibiothérapie en cours, portage de germes résistants, incompréhensions sur le timing et la durée de l'antibioprophylaxie, notion d'allergie à la pénicilline. Dans cet article, nous tentons de clarifier ces situations afin de favoriser la bonne application de l'antibioprophylaxie.

Hypnosis in the operating room: are anesthesiology teams interested and well-informed?

BACKGROUND: Hypnosis can be a beneficial complementary anesthesia technique for a variety of surgical procedures. Despite favorable scientific evidence, hypnosis is still rarely used in the operating room. Obstacles to implementation could be a lack of interest or training, misconceptions, as well as limited knowledge amongst anesthesiology teams. Hence, this study aimed to assess the interest, training, beliefs, and knowledge about hypnosis in the operating room staff. DESIGN: A questionnaire with 21-items, based on a prior survey, was set up on an online platform. The medical and nursing anesthesiology staff of four Swiss academic and large regional hospitals (N = 754) were invited to participate anonymously through e-mails sent by their hierarchy. Results were analyzed quantitatively. RESULTS: Between June, 2020 and August, 2021 353 answers were collected (47% response rate). Most (92%) were aware that hypnosis needs specific training, with 14% trained. A large majority of the untrained staff wished to enroll for conversational hypnosis training. There was a strong agreement for hypnosis playing a role in anesthesia. Nevertheless, many of these professionals believed that hypnosis has a limited field of action (53%) or that it would be too time consuming (33%). The reduction of misconceptions was based more on exposure to hypnosis than on training. CONCLUSION: Overall, anesthesia providers' attitude was in favor of using hypnosis in the operating room. Misconceptions such as a prolongation of the procedure, alteration of consent, lack of acceptability for patients, and limited indications were identified as potential barriers. These deserve to be challenged through proper dissemination of the recent scientific literature and exposure to practice.

Management of adverse effects of intrathecal opioids in acute pain.

Intrathecal opioids have been used for several decades in different clinical settings. They are easy to administer and provide many benefits in clinical practice, such as better quality of spinal anaesthesia, prolonged postoperative analgesia, decreased postoperative analgesic requirements and early mobilisation. Several lipophilic and hydrophilic opioids are available for intrathecal administration, either in combination with general anaesthesia or as adjuncts to local anaesthetics. Adverse effects after intrathecal lipophilic opioids administration are predominantly short-lived and benign. In contrast, intrathecal hydrophilic opioids may have potentially serious adverse effects, the most feared of which is respiratory depression. In this review, we will focus on the contemporary evidence regarding intrathecal hydrophilic opioids and present their adverse effects and how to manage them.

The postoperative analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus long-acting local anaesthetics for peripheral nerve and field blocks: A systematic review and meta-analysis, with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Liposomal bupivacaine is claimed by the manufacturer to provide analgesia for up to 72 h postoperatively. OBJECTIVES: To compare the postoperative analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus long-acting local anaesthetics for peripheral nerve or field blocks. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, among others, up to June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We retrieved randomised controlled trials comparing liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine, levobupivacaine or ropivacaine for peripheral nerve and field blocks after all types of surgery. Our primary endpoint was rest pain score (analogue scale 0 to 10) at 24 h. Secondary endpoints included rest pain score at 48 and 72 h, and morphine consumption at 24, 48 and 72 h. RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials including 2122 patients were identified. Rest pain scores at 24 h were significantly reduced by liposomal bupivacaine with a mean difference (95% CI) of -0.9 (-1.4 to -0.4), I2  = 87%, P  < 0.001. This reduction in pain scores persisted at 48 h and 72 h with mean differences (95% CI) of -0.7 (-1.1 to -0.3), I2  = 82%, P  = 0.001 and -0.7 (-1.1 to -0.3), I2  = 80%, P  < 0.001, respectively. There were no differences in interval morphine consumption at 24 h ( P  = 0.15), 48 h ( P  = 0.15) and 72 h ( P  = 0.07). The quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate level evidence that liposomal bupivacaine reduces rest pain scores by 0.9 out of 10 units, when compared with long-acting local anaesthetics at 24 hours after surgery, and by 0.7 up to 72 hours after surgery.

[Periprocedural management of oral anticoagulation - Limit the bleeding risk in elective procedures]. / Gestion péri-interventionnelle des anticoagulants oraux - Limiter le risque hémorragique en situation élective.

The decision to continue or to stop oral anticoagulant therapy in the peri-interventional period is based on the evaluation of bleeding risk associated with the invasive procedure or with the anaesthetic technique, especially when a deep nerve block or a neuraxial block is planned, and on the evaluation of patient-associated risk factors. Anticoagulant bridging during the preoperative period as well as an early resumption of anticoagulation in the postoperative period are associated with increased bleeding rates without reduction of thromboembolic events, thus limiting the indications of bridging to patients with chronic vitamin K agonist therapy and a high thrombotic risk.

La décision de poursuivre ou d'arrêter un traitement anticoagulant oral en période péri-interventionnelle se base sur l'évaluation du risque hémorragique en lien avec le geste invasif ou la technique anesthésique, en particulier lorsqu'une anesthésie locorégionale profonde ou neuraxiale est envisagée, et sur l'évaluation des pathologies du patient. Un relais anticoagulant en préopératoire, tout comme la reprise précoce de l'anticoagulation en postopératoire, expose le patient à un risque hémorragique qui, le plus souvent, surpasse le risque thrombotique, limitant l'indication des relais anticoagulants aux patients traités par antivitamine K au long cours et à haut risque thrombotique.

Impact of an extrafascial versus intrafascial injection for supraclavicular brachial plexus block on respiratory function: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hemidiaphragmatic paresis after ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block is reported to occur in up to 67% of patients. We tested the hypothesis that an injection outside the brachial plexus sheath reduces the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paresis compared with an intrafascial injection while providing similar analgesia. METHODS: Fifty American Society of Anesthesiologists I-III patients scheduled for elective upper limb surgery received a supraclavicular brachial plexus block using 30 mL of 1:1 mixture of mepivacaine 1% and ropivacaine 0.5%. The block procedures were randomized to position the needle tip either within the brachial plexus after piercing the sheath (intrafascial injection) or outside the brachial plexus sheath (extrafascial injection). The primary outcome was the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paresis 30 min after the injection, measured by M-mode ultrasonography. Additional outcomes included time to surgery readiness, and resting and dynamic pain scores at 24 hours postoperatively (Numeric Rating Scale, 0-10). RESULTS: The incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paresis 30 min after the injection was 9% (95% CI 1% to 29%) and 0% (95% CI 0% to 15%) in the intrafascial and extrafascial groups respectively (p=0.14). Extrafascial injection was associated with a longer time to surgery readiness (intrafascial: 18 min (95% CI: 16 to 21 min); extrafascial: 37 min (95% CI: 31 to 42 min); p<0.001). At 24 hours, resting and dynamic pain scores were similar between groups. DISCUSSION: Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block with an extrafascial injection does not reduce the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paresis although it provides similar analgesia, when compared with an intrafascial injection. The longer time to surgery readiness is less compatible with contemporary operating theater efficiency requirements. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03957772.

The analgesic efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block vs. wound infiltration after inguinal and infra-umbilical hernia repairs: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and wound infiltration with local anaesthetic have been used to relieve pain after inguinal or infra-umbilical hernia repair. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether TAP block or local anaesthetic infiltration is the best analgesic option after inguinal or infra-umbilical hernia repair. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science, up to June, 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We retrieved randomised controlled trials comparing TAP block with wound infiltration after inguinal or infra-umbilical hernia repair. Primary outcome was rest pain score (analogue scale 0 to 10) at 2 postoperative hours. Secondary pain-related outcomes included rest pain score at 12 and 24 h, and intravenous morphine consumption at 2, 12 and 24 h. Other secondary outcomes sought were block-related complications such as rates of postoperative infection, haematoma, visceral injury and systemic toxicity of local anaesthetic. RESULTS: Seven trials including 420 patients were identified. There was a significant difference in rest pain score at 2 postoperative hours in favour of TAP block compared with wound infiltration, with a mean (95% confidence interval) difference of -0.8 (-1.3 to -0.2); I2  = 85%; P   =  0.01. Most secondary pain-related outcomes were also significantly improved following TAP block. No complication was reported. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION: There is moderate level evidence that TAP block provides superior analgesia compared with wound infiltration following inguinal or infra-umbilical hernia repair. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020208053.

Transversus abdominis plane block versus local anaesthetic wound infiltration for analgesia after caesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and local anaesthetic wound infiltration are used to relieve pain after caesarean section. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether TAP block or local anaesthetic wound infiltration is the better analgesic option after caesarean section. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science up to June 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We retrieved randomised controlled trials comparing TAP block with wound infiltration after caesarean section. Primary outcome was pain score during rest (analogue scale, 0 to 10) at 2 h postoperatively, analysed according to the TAP block technique (ultrasound-guided/landmark-guided), anaesthetic strategy (spinal/general), intrathecal fentanyl (yes/no) and multimodal analgesia (yes/no). Secondary pain-related outcomes included pain scores during rest at 12 and 24 h, and total intravenous morphine consumption at 2, 12 and 24 h. We sought rates of block complications, including postoperative infection, haematoma, visceral injury and local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. RESULTS: Seven trials, totalling 475 patients, were identified. There was no difference in pain score during rest at 2 h between groups. Subgroup analyses revealed no differences related to TAP block technique (P = 0.64), anaesthetic strategy (P = 0.53), administration of intrathecal fentanyl (P = 0.59) or presence of multimodal analgesia (P = 0.57). Pain score during rest at 12 h and intravenous morphine consumption at 2 and 12 h were identical in both groups. Data were insufficient to compare block complications. Overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION: There is moderate level evidence that TAP block and wound infiltration provide similar postoperative analgesia after caesarean section. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020208046.

Transversus abdominis plane block versus local anesthetic wound infiltration for optimal analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and local anesthetic wound infiltration have been used to relieve pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis to determine the best analgesic technique. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature for trials comparing TAP block with wound infiltration after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The primary outcome was pain score during rest (analogue scale, 0-10) at 2 postoperative hours. Secondary pain-related outcomes included pain scores during rest at 12 and 24 h, pain scores during movement and intravenous morphine consumption at 2, 12 and 24 h, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Other secondary outcomes sought were block-related complications such as rates of postoperative infection, hematoma, visceral injury and local anesthetic systemic toxicity. RESULTS: Ten trials including 668 patients were identified. There was a significant difference in pain score during rest at 2 postoperative hours in favour of TAP block when compared with wound infiltration (mean difference [95%CI]: -0.7 [-1.2, -0.2]; I2 = 71%; p = 0.008). Pain scores during rest at 12 and 24 h and pain scores during movement at 24 h were also significantly lower with TAP block than wound infiltration. Postoperative morphine consumption and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly lower in patients who received a TAP block. Data were insufficient to compare block-related complications. The overall quality of evidence was moderate-to-high. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-to-high level evidence that the TAP block provides superior analgesia when compared with wound infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Trial registry number: PROSPERO CRD42020208057.

The Analgesic Efficacy of Transversus Abdominis Plane Block After Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has been used to relieve pain after bariatric surgery but with conflicting data on its analgesic efficacy. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis to clarify whether TAP block provides effective postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. We systematically searched the literature for any trials comparing TAP block with a control group (no block or sham injection). The primary outcome was pain scores at rest (analog scale, 0-10) at 2 postoperative hours. Secondary pain-related outcomes included pain scores at rest at 12 and 24 h and both dynamic pain scores and intravenous morphine equivalent consumption at 2, 12 and 24 h. Additional secondary outcomes sought were rates of postoperative infection, haematoma, visceral injury and local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. Thirteen trials totalling 1025 patients were identified. Pain scores at rest at 2 postoperative hours were significantly lower in the TAP block group compared with the control group, with a mean (95% CI) difference of - 1.8 (- 2.5, - 1.1); I2 = 85%; p < 0.00001. All other secondary pain-related outcomes were also significantly lower in the intervention group with the exception of dynamic pain scores and intravenous morphine equivalent consumption at 2 postoperative hours. Rates of block-related complications were not significantly different between groups. The overall quality of evidence was moderate-to-low. There is moderate-to-low level evidence that the TAP block improves postoperative analgesia after bariatric surgery up to 24 postoperative hours, when compared with a control group, without major reported complications. Clinical Trial NumberPROSPERO - registration number: CRD42019136542.

Analgesic efficacy of PECS vs paravertebral blocks after radical mastectomy: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Due to conflicting results published in the literature regarding the analgesic superiority between the paravertebral block and the PECS block, the study objective is to determine which one should be the first line analgesic treatment after radical mastectomy. DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. SETTING: Operating room, postoperative recovery area and ward, up to 24 postoperative hours. PATIENTS: Patients scheduled for radical mastectomy under general anaesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: We searched five electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing any PECS block with a paravertebral block. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was rest pain score (0-10) at 2 postoperative hours, analyzed according to the combination with axillary dissection or not, to account for heterogeneity. Secondary outcomes included rest pain scores, cumulative intravenous morphine equivalents consumption and rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 postoperative hours. MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials including 388 patients were identified. Rest pain scores at 2 postoperative hours were decreased in the PECS block group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -0.4 (-0.7 to -0.1), I2 = 68%, p = 0.01, and a significant subgroup difference observed between radical mastectomy with (mean difference [95%CI]: 0.0 [-0.2 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, p = 1.00), or without axillary dissection (mean difference [95%CI]: -0.7 [-1.1 to -0.4], I2 = 40%, p < 0.001; p for subgroup difference < 0.001). All secondary pain-related outcomes were similar between groups. The overall quality of evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that a PECS block provides marginal postoperative analgesic benefit after radical mastectomy at 2 postoperative hours only, when compared with a paravertebral block, and not beyond. Clinical trial number: PROSPERO - registration number: CRD42019131555.

Analgesic efficacy of PECS and serratus plane blocks after breast surgery: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pectoral nerves (PECS) blocks provide effective postoperative analgesia when compared with no regional technique in patients undergoing breast surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. SETTING: Operating room, postoperative recovery area and ward, up to 24 postoperative hours. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing breast surgery under general anaesthesia with either PECS block or no regional technique. INTERVENTIONS: We searched five electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing PECS block with no block or sham injection. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was rest pain scores (analogue scale, 0-10) at 2 h, analysed according to surgery (mastectomy vs other breast surgery) and regional technique (PECS 2 vs other blocks), among others. Secondary outcomes included morphine equivalent consumption, and rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 h. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials including 1026 patients were identified. Rest pain scores at 2 h were decreased in the PECS blocks group, with a mean (95%CI) difference of -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0); I2 = 93%; p < 0.001, with no differences between surgery (mastectomy, mean difference [95%CI]: -1.8 [-2.4, -1.2], I2 = 91%, p < 0.001; other breast surgery, mean difference [95%CI]: -1.1 [-2.1, -0.1], I2 = 94%, p = 0.03; p for subgroup difference = 0.25), and regional technique (PECS 2, mean differences [95%CI]: -1.6 [-2.3, -1.0], I2 = 94%, p < 0.001; other blocks, mean differences [95%CI]: -1.3 [-2.4, -0.1], I2 = 74%, p = 0.04; p for subgroup difference = 0.57). The rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting was reduced from 30.8% (95%CI: 25.7%, 36.3%) to 18.7% (95%CI, 14.4%, 23.5%; p = 0.01). Similarly, secondary outcomes were significantly improved in the PECS blocks group. The overall quality of evidence was moderate-to-high. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-to-high level evidence that PECS blocks provide postoperative analgesia after breast surgery when compared with no regional technique and reduce rate of PONV. This might provide the most benefit to those at high-risk of postoperative pain.

Low- versus high-dose intraoperative opioids: A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced hyperalgesia is a state of nociceptive sensitisation secondary to opioid administration. The objective of this meta-analysis was to test the hypothesis that high-dose intraoperative opioids contribute to increased post-operative pain and hyperalgesia when compared with a low-dose regimen in patients under general anaesthesia. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines and rated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Only trials investigating pain outcomes and comparing two different dosages of the same intraoperative opioid in patients under general anaesthesia were included. The primary outcome was pain score (analogue scale, 0-10) at 24 post-operative hours. Secondary outcomes included pain score and cumulative intravenous morphine equivalents (mg) consumed at 2 post-operative hours, together with mechanical pain threshold (g·mm-2 ). RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomised controlled trials, including 1630 patients, were identified. Pain score at rest at 24 post-operative hours was increased in the high-dose group (mean difference [95% CI]: -0.2 [-0.4, -0.1]; trial sequential analysis-adjusted CI: -0.4, -0.02; low certainty of evidence). Similarly, at 2 post-operative hours, both pain score (mean difference [95% CI]: -0.4 [-0.6, -0.2]; low certainty of evidence) and cumulative intravenous morphine equivalents consumed (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.6 mg [-2.6, -0.7]; low certainty of evidence) were significantly higher in the high-dose group. Finally, the threshold for mechanical pain was significantly lower in the high-dose group (mean difference to pressure [95% CI]: 3.8 g·mm-2 [1.8, 5.8]; low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: There is low certainty of evidence that high-dose intraoperative opioid administration increases pain scores in the post-operative period, when compared with a low-dose regimen.

Retroclavicular vs supraclavicular brachial plexus block for distal upper limb surgery: a randomised, controlled, single-blinded trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia for upper limb surgery is routinely performed with brachial plexus blocks. A retroclavicular brachial plexus block has recently been described, but has not been adequately compared with another approach. This randomised controlled single-blinded trial tested the hypothesis that the retroclavicular approach, when compared with the supraclavicular approach, would increase the success rate. METHODS: One hundred and twenty ASA physical status 1-3 patients undergoing distal upper limb surgery were randomised to receive an ultrasound-guided retroclavicular or supraclavicular brachial plexus block with 30 mL of a 1:1 mixture of mepivacaine 1% and ropivacaine 0.5%, using a single-injection technique without needle tip repositioning. The primary outcome was block success rate 30 min after local anaesthetic injection, defined as a composite score of 14 of 16 points, inclusive of sensory and motor components. Secondary outcomes included needling time, time to first opioid request, oxycodone consumption, and pain scores (numeric rating scale, 0-10) at 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Success rates were 98.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 90.8%, 99.9%] and 98.3% [95% CI: 90.9%, 99.9%] in the supraclavicular and retroclavicular groups, respectively (P=0.99). The mean needling time was reduced in the supraclavicular group [supraclavicular: 5.0 (95% CI: 4.7, 5.4) min; retroclavicular: 6.0 (95% CI: 5.4, 6.6) min; P=0.006]. The mean time to first opioid request was similar between groups [supraclavicular: 439 (95% CI: 399, 479) min; retroclavicular: 447 (95% CI: 397, 498) min; P=0.19] as were oxycodone consumption [supraclavicular: 10.0 (95% CI: 6.5, 13.5 mg; retroclavicular: 7.9 (95% CI: 4.8, 11.0) mg; P=0.80] and pain scores at 24 h postoperatively [supraclavicular: 1.2 (95% CI: 2.1, 2.7); retroclavicular: 1.5 (95% CI: 1.6, 2.4); P=0.09]. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided retroclavicular and supraclavicular brachial plexus blocks share identical success rates, while providing similar pain relief. Reduced needling time in the supraclavicular approach is not clinically relevant. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02641613.

The role of tracheal tube introducers and stylets in current airway management.

Tracheal tube introducers and stylets are highly successful devices for the management of various airway scenarios. Their first-line use is advocated in many difficult airway algorithms. Although they have been used for decades, the shape and design of introducers and stylets as well as their patterns of use are constantly evolving. Our purpose is to provide the clinician with an update on these different devices. We performed a systematic literature search from 2005 until May 2015, without language restrictions. The two authors independently retrieved all studies with the keywords "bougie", "gum elastic bougie", "stylet", "airway management", "tracheal tube introducer" and "extubation catheter". Our search did yield mostly observational and retrospective studies with small case numbers. The data was synthesized into a narrative review to provide the clinician with an update on the characteristics, indications and techniques of use as well as the dangers of different intubation aids. Today, numerous tracheal tube introducers and stylets exist with different indications, ranging from general to specific situations. Anesthetists should be familiar with the different devices, their characteristics and indications in order to use the right device at the right time in the right way.

PRO: osmotherapy for the treatment of acute intracranial hypertension.

Persisting severe brain edema causes intracranial hypertension and is associated with poor patient outcome. The treatment of acute intracranial hypertension is complex and multimodal. The most important options for medical treatment include controlled ventilation and osmotherapy, maintenance of brain and body homeostasis, and sedation. Osmotherapy is recommended in all relevant guidelines. The 2 osmotic agents most frequently used are mannitol and hypertonic saline. Both reduce intracranial pressure and improve cerebral perfusion and cerebral oxygen delivery. However, hypertonic saline seems advantageous over mannitol in many situations. In multitrauma patients, hypertonic saline contributes to hemodynamic stabilization and to the prevention of secondary insults. In addition, hypertonic saline has neurohumoral and immunologic effects, which may be beneficial in cerebral resuscitation.