Post-surgical inflammatory neuropathy after anterior cruciate ligament repair: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Unanticipated symptoms of peripheral nerve damage following surgery are distressing to both the patient and their clinical team, including surgeons, anesthesiologists, and neurologists. The causes that are commonly considered for perioperative neuropathy can include surgical trauma, positioning-related injury, or injury related to a regional anesthetic technique. However, these cases often do not have a clear etiology and can occur without any apparent periprocedural anomalies. Postoperative inflammatory neuropathy is a more recently described, and potentially underrecognized cause of perioperative neuropathy which may improve with corticosteroid therapy. Therefore, it is an important etiology to consider early in the evaluation of perioperative neuropathy. CASE PRESENTATION: An otherwise healthy patient presented for left anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. He underwent femoral and sciatic ultrasound-guided single-injection peripheral nerve blocks preoperatively, followed by a general anesthetic for the surgical procedure. He developed postoperative neuropathy in the sciatic distribution with both sensory and motor deficits. The patient received multi-disciplinary consultations, including neurology and pain management, and a broad differential diagnosis was considered. Based on neurological evaluation and imaging studies, a final diagnosis of post-surgical inflammatory neuropathy was made. The patient's course improved with conservative management, but immunosuppressive treatment may have been considered for a more severe or worsening clinical course. CONCLUSIONS: There are limited publications describing postoperative inflammatory neuropathy, and this case serves to illustrate a potentially under-recognized and multifactorial cause of postoperative neuropathy. Perioperative neuropathies are a complication that surgeons and anesthesiologists strive to avoid; however, prevention and treatment of this condition have been elusive. Increased reporting and investigation of postoperative inflammatory neuropathy as one cause for this complication will help to further our understanding of this potentially devastating complication.

Continuous interscalene versus phrenic nerve-sparing high-thoracic erector spinae plane block for total shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The high-thoracic erector spinae plane block (HT-ESPB) has been reported as an effective analgesic modality for the shoulder region without phrenic nerve palsy. The goal of this study was to compare the HT-ESPB as a phrenic nerve-sparing alternative to an interscalene block for total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty at Stanford Health Care (Palo Alto, CA, USA) were enrolled in a double-blind randomized controlled trial. We randomized 28 patients to receive either an interscalene or HT-ESPB perineural catheter preoperatively; 26 patients were included in the final analysis. The study was powered for the primary outcome of incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Other outcome measures included incentive spirometry volume, brachial plexus motor and sensory exams, adverse events, pain scores, and opioid consumption. RESULTS: The incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis in the HT-ESPB catheter group was significantly lower than in the interscalene catheter group (0/12, 0% vs 14/14, 100%; P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in pain scores and opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents) between the interscalene and HT-ESPB groups through postoperative day (POD) 2. Nevertheless, the mean (standard deviation) point estimates for opioid consumption for the HT-ESPB group were higher than for the interscalene group in the PACU (HT-ESPB: 24.8 [26.7] mg; interscalene: 10.7 [21.7] mg) and for POD 0 (HT-ESPB: 20.5 [25.0] mg; interscalene: 6.7 [12.0] mg). In addition, cumulative postoperative opioid consumption was significantly higher at POD 0 (PACU through POD 0) in the HT-ESPB group (45.3 [39.9] mg) than in the interscalene group (16.6 [21.9] mg; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that continuous HT-ESPB can be a phrenic nerve-sparing alternative to continuous interscalene brachial plexus blockade, although the latter provided superior opioid-sparing in the immediate postoperative period. This was a small sample size study, and further investigations powered to detect differences in analgesic and quality of recovery score endpoints are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT03807505); registered 17 January 2019.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Le bloc des muscles érecteurs du rachis du haut thorax (BMER-HT) a été rapporté comme une modalité analgésique efficace pour la région de l'épaule et ce, sans paralysie du nerf phrénique. L'objectif de cette étude était de comparer ce bloc en tant qu'alternative épargnant le nerf phrénique à un bloc interscalénique pour l'arthroplastie totale de l'épaule. MéTHODE: Trente patients bénéficiant d'une arthroplastie totale de l'épaule au centre de soins Stanford Health Care (Palo Alto, CA, États-Unis) ont été recrutés dans une étude randomisée contrôlée à double insu. Nous avons randomisé 28 patients à recevoir un cathéter périneural interscalénique ou un BMER-HT en préopératoire; 26 patients ont été inclus dans l'analyse finale. Le calcul de puissance de l'étude a été effectué pour répondre au critère d'évaluation principal, qui était l'incidence de paralysie hémidiaphragmatique en salle de réveil. Les autres issues mesurées comprenaient les volumes de spirométrie, les examens moteurs et sensoriels du plexus brachial, les événements indésirables, les scores de douleur et la consommation d'opioïdes. RéSULTATS: L'incidence de paralysie hémidiaphragmatique dans le groupe cathéter BMER-HT était significativement plus faible que dans le groupe cathéter interscalénique (0/12, 0 % vs 14/14, 100 %; P < 0,001). Aucune différence statistiquement significative n'a été observée dans les scores de douleur et la consommation d'opioïdes (en équivalents morphine par voie orale) entre les groupes interscalénique et BMER-HT jusqu'au jour postopératoire (JPO) 2. Néanmoins, en salle de réveil, les estimations ponctuelles moyennes (écart type) de la consommation d'opioïdes pour le groupe BMER-HT étaient plus élevées que pour le groupe interscalénique (BMER-HT : 24,8 [26,7] mg; interscalénique : 10,7 [21,7] mg), ainsi qu'au JPO 0 (BMER-HT : 20,5 [25,0] mg; interscalénique: 6,7 [12,0] mg). De plus, la consommation cumulative d'opioïdes postopératoires était significativement plus élevée au JPO 0 (salle de réveil jusqu'au JPO 0) dans le groupe BMER-HT (45,3 [39,9] mg) que dans le groupe interscalénique (16,6 [21,9] mg; P = 0,04). CONCLUSION: Cette étude suggère que le BMER-HT continu peut être une alternative au bloc interscalénique continu du plexus brachial pour épargner le nerf phrénique, bien que le bloc interscalénique ait fourni une épargne d'opioïdes supérieure en période postopératoire immédiate. Il s'agissait d'une étude de petite taille d'échantillon, et d'autres études visant à détecter les différences dans les scores des critères d'évaluation en matière d'analgésie et de qualité de la récupération sont nécessaires. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03807505); enregistrée le 17 janvier 2019.

Clinical effect of normal saline injectate into interscalene nerve block catheters given within one hour of local anesthetic bolus on analgesia and hemidiaphragmatic paralysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous case reports describe the reversal of phrenic nerve blockade from the interscalene nerve block using normal saline injectate washout. This randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate whether using normal saline injectate to wash out local anesthetic from an interscalene nerve block catheter would restore phrenic nerve and diaphragm function, while preserving analgesia. METHODS: Institutional review board approval, clinical trial registration and consent were obtained for patients undergoing shoulder surgery with an interscalene nerve block catheter. 16 patients were randomized to receive three 10 mL aliquots of normal saline injectate (intervention group, n=8) or three sham injectates (control group, n=8) via their perineural catheters in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Primary outcome measures were the effects on ipsilateral hemidiaphragmatic paralysis, and secondary outcome measures included PACU opioid consumption, pain scores and change in brachial plexus sensory examination and motor function. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in reversal of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. However, there was a greater number of patients in the intervention group who ultimately displayed partial, as opposed to full, paralysis of the hemidiaphragm (p=0.03). There was no significant difference in pain scores, PACU opioid requirement, and brachial plexus motor and sensory examinations between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: All patients had persistent hemidiaphragmatic paralysis after the intervention, but fewer patients in the intervention group progressed to full paralysis, suggesting that a larger bolus dose of normal saline may be needed to completely reverse hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. Although normal saline injectate in 10mL increments given through the interscalene nerve block catheter had no clinically significant effect on reversing phrenic nerve blockade, it also did not lead to a reduction in analgesia and may be protective in preventing the progression to full hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03677778.