Factors to consider for fascial plane blocks' success in acute and chronic pain management.

The outcome of fascial plane blocks (FPBs) has a certain variability that may depend on many factors, which can be divided into three main categories: operator-related, patient-related and drug-related. Operator-related factors include personal skills, choice of needle and injection modalities. Patient variables include anthropometric features, the type of targeted fascia, anatomical variants, patient positioning, muscle tone and breathing. Ultimately, efficacy, onset, and duration of fascial blocks may be affected by characteristics of the injected solution, including the type of local anesthetic, volume, concentration, pH, temperature and the use of adjuvants. In this article, we investigated all the factors that may influence the outcome of FPBs from a generic perspective, without focusing on any specific technique. Also, we provided suggestions to optimize techniques for everyday practitioners and insights to researchers for future studies.

Erector spinae plane block: the ultimate 'plan A' block?

The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is one of seven 'Plan A' blocks proposed by Regional Anaesthesia UK, covering the key areas of commonly encountered surgeries and acute pain. Unlike the other six blocks, the ESPB can be performed at all levels of the spine and provides analgesia to most regions of the body, leading to the argument that the ESPB is the ultimate Plan A block. Current studies show a high level of evidence supporting use in thoracoabdominal surgery but a lack of benefit in upper and lower limb surgery compared with local infiltration and other Plan A blocks. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the erector spinae plane block is the ultimate Plan A block.

Assistive artificial intelligence for ultrasound image interpretation in regional anaesthesia: an external validation study.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonound is used to identify anatomical structures during regional anaesthesia and to guide needle insertion and injection of local anaesthetic. ScanNav Anatomy Peripheral Nerve Block (Intelligent Ultrasound, Cardiff, UK) is an artificial intelligence-based device that produces a colour overlay on real-time B-mode ultrasound to highlight anatomical structures of interest. We evaluated the accuracy of the artificial-intelligence colour overlay and its perceived influence on risk of adverse events or block failure. METHODS: Ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia experts acquired 720 videos from 40 volunteers (across nine anatomical regions) without using the device. The artificial-intelligence colour overlay was subsequently applied. Three more experts independently reviewed each video (with the original unmodified video) to assess accuracy of the colour overlay in relation to key anatomical structures (true positive/negative and false positive/negative) and the potential for highlighting to modify perceived risk of adverse events (needle trauma to nerves, arteries, pleura, and peritoneum) or block failure. RESULTS: The artificial-intelligence models identified the structure of interest in 93.5% of cases (1519/1624), with a false-negative rate of 3.0% (48/1624) and a false-positive rate of 3.5% (57/1624). Highlighting was judged to reduce the risk of unwanted needle trauma to nerves, arteries, pleura, and peritoneum in 62.9-86.4% of cases (302/480 to 345/400), and to increase the risk in 0.0-1.7% (0/160 to 8/480). Risk of block failure was reported to be reduced in 81.3% of scans (585/720) and to be increased in 1.8% (13/720). CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence-based devices can potentially aid image acquisition and interpretation in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. Further studies are necessary to demonstrate their effectiveness in supporting training and clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04906018.

Recommendations for anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of intermediate and advanced blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia.

Recent recommendations describe a set of core anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA). This project aimed to generate consensus recommendations for core structures to identify during the performance of intermediate and advanced blocks. An initial longlist of structures was refined by an international panel of key opinion leaders in UGRA over a three-round Delphi process. All rounds were conducted virtually and anonymously. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for "orientation scanning" (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for "block view" (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). A "strong recommendation" was made if ≥75% of participants rated any structure as "definitely include" in any round. A "weak recommendation" was made if >50% of participants rated it as "definitely include" or "probably include" for all rounds, but the criterion for strong recommendation was never met. Structures which did not meet either criterion were excluded. Forty-one participants were invited and 40 accepted; 38 completed all three rounds. Participants considered the ultrasound scanning for 19 peripheral nerve blocks across all three rounds. Two hundred and seventy-four structures were reviewed for both orientation scanning and block view; a "strong recommendation" was made for 60 structures on orientation scanning and 44 on the block view. A "weak recommendation" was made for 107 and 62 structures, respectively. These recommendations are intended to help standardize teaching and research in UGRA and support widespread and consistent practice.

Core outcome set for peripheral regional anesthesia research: a systematic review and Delphi study.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: There is heterogeneity among the outcomes used in regional anesthesia research. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to produce a core outcome set for regional anesthesia research. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and Delphi study to develop this core outcome set. A systematic review of the literature from January 2015 to December 2019 was undertaken to generate a long list of potential outcomes to be included in the core outcome set. For each outcome found, the parameters such as the measurement scale, timing and definitions, were compiled. Regional anesthesia experts were then recruited to participate in a three-round electronic modified Delphi process with incremental thresholds to generate a core outcome set. Once the core outcomes were decided, a final Delphi survey and video conference vote was used to reach a consensus on the outcome parameters. RESULTS: Two hundred and six papers were generated following the systematic review, producing a long list of 224 unique outcomes. Twenty-one international regional anesthesia experts participated in the study. Ten core outcomes were selected after three Delphi survey rounds with 13 outcome parameters reaching consensus after a final Delphi survey and video conference. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first core outcome set for regional anesthesia derived by international expert consensus. These are proposed not to limit the outcomes examined in future studies, but rather to serve as a minimum core set. If adopted, this may increase the relevance of outcomes being studied, reduce selective reporting bias and increase the availability and suitability of data for meta-analysis in this area.

International consensus on anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia.

There is no universally agreed set of anatomical structures that must be identified on ultrasound for the performance of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) techniques. This study aimed to produce standardized recommendations for core (minimum) structures to identify during seven basic blocks. An international consensus was sought through a modified Delphi process. A long-list of anatomical structures was refined through serial review by key opinion leaders in UGRA. All rounds were conducted remotely and anonymously to facilitate equal contribution of each participant. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for "orientation scanning" (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for the "block view" (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). Strong recommendations for inclusion were made if ≥75% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" in any round. Weak recommendations were made if >50% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" or "probably include" for all rounds (but the criterion for "strong recommendation" was never met). Thirty-six participants (94.7%) completed all rounds. 128 structures were reviewed; a "strong recommendation" is made for 35 structures on orientation scanning and 28 for the block view. A "weak recommendation" is made for 36 and 20 structures, respectively. This study provides recommendations on the core (minimum) set of anatomical structures to identify during ultrasound scanning for seven basic blocks in UGRA. They are intended to support consistent practice, empower non-experts using basic UGRA techniques, and standardize teaching and research.

The practice of regional anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international survey of members of three regional anesthesia societies.

PURPOSE: To determine the preferences and attitudes of members of regional anesthesia societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We distributed an electronic survey to members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Regional Anaesthesia-UK, and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. A questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was developed by a panel of experienced regional anesthesiologists and distributed by email to the participants. The survey covered the following domains: participant information, practice settings, preference for the type of anesthetic technique, the use of personal protective equipment, and oxygen therapy. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 729 participants from 73 different countries, with a response rate of 20.1% (729/3,630) for the number of emails opened and 8.5% (729/8,572) for the number of emails sent. Most respondents (87.7%) identified as anesthesia staff (faculty or consultant) and practiced obstetric and non-obstetric anesthesia (55.3%). The practice of regional anesthesia either expanded or remained the same, with only 2% of respondents decreasing their use compared with the pre-pandemic period. The top reasons for an increase in the use of regional anesthesia was to reduce the need for an aerosol-generating medical procedure and to reduce the risk of possible complications to patients. The most common reason for decreased use of regional anesthesia was the risk of urgent conversion to general anesthesia. Approximately 70% of the responders used airborne precautions when providing care to a patient under regional anesthesia. The most common oxygen delivery method was nasal prongs (cannula) with a surgical mask layered over it (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the perceived benefits of regional over general anesthesia, approximately half of the members of three regional anesthesia societies seem to have expanded their use of regional anesthesia techniques during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Déterminer les préférences et les attitudes des membres des sociétés d'anesthésie régionale pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons distribué un sondage électronique aux membres de l'American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, de Regional Anesthesia-UK et de l'European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. Un questionnaire composé de 19 questions a été élaboré par un panel d'anesthésiologistes régionaux d'expérience et distribué par courriel aux participants. Le sondage couvrait les domaines suivants : les renseignements sur les participants, les contextes de pratique, leur préférence quant au type de technique d'anesthésie, l'utilisation d'équipement de protection individuelle et l'oxygénothérapie RéSULTATS: Le sondage a été complété par 729 participants provenant de 73 pays différents, avec un taux de réponse de 20,1 % (729/3630) pour le nombre de courriels ouverts et de 8,5 % (729/8572) pour le nombre de courriels envoyés. La plupart des répondants (87,7 %) se sont identifiés comme anesthésiologistes (académique ou consultant) et pratiquaient l'anesthésie obstétricale et non obstétricale (55,3 %). Leur pratique de l'anesthésie régionale s'est étendue ou est demeurée inchangée, et seulement 2 % des répondants ont indiqué avoir diminué leur utilisation de cette pratique par rapport à la période pré-pandémique. Les principales raisons d'une augmentation de l'utilisation de l'anesthésie régionale étaient de réduire la nécessité d'une intervention médicale générant des aérosols et de réduire le risque de complications potentielles pour les patients. La raison la plus courante de diminution du recours à l'anesthésie régionale était le risque de conversion urgente à une anesthésie générale. Environ 70 % des intervenants ont utilisé des précautions en matière de propagation des aérosols lorsqu'ils procuraient des soins à un patient sous anesthésie régionale. La méthode d'administration d'oxygène la plus fréquemment utilisée était les canules nasales avec un masque chirurgical superposé (61 %). CONCLUSION: Compte tenu des avantages perçus de l'anesthésie régionale par rapport à l'anesthésie générale, environ la moitié des membres de trois sociétés d'anesthésie régionale semblent avoir élargi leur utilisation des techniques d'anesthésie régionale pendant la vague initiale de la pandémie de COVID-19.

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.

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall blocks.

BACKGROUND: There is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement. RESULTS: Sixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.

Mode of Anesthesia and Quality of Recovery After Breast Surgery: A Case Series of 100 Patients.

PURPOSE: Regional anesthesia techniques may improve patient recovery beyond treating postoperative pain alone and may facilitate patients in their return to functional, psychological as well as emotional baselines. We hypothesized that the quality of recovery (QoR) experienced by patients following breast surgery was associated with the type of anesthesia received as well as the use of a regional anesthesia technique during surgery. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective, observational cohort study of patients undergoing elective breast procedures (both cancer and non-cancer surgery). RESULTS:  One hundred patients completed baseline QoR-15 questionnaires prior to surgery, of which 96 also completed QoR-15 questionnaires on postoperative day 1. The median (IQR) QoR-15 score at baseline was 133 (124-141), decreasing to 121 (106.75-136.25) on postoperative day 1. In multivariable linear regression analysis, paravertebral blocks (PVB) were associated with a 16.7 point higher overall QoR-15 score on postoperative day 1 compared to no block (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 7.7-25.8, p<0.001); while the use of combination blocks was associated with a 21.8 point higher postoperative QoR-15 score compared to no block (95% CI: 12.8-30.8, p<0.001). PVB and combination blocks were further associated with better postoperative pain, physical comfort, physical independence and emotional state scores, compared with no block. The use of total intravenous anesthetic was not associated with differences in postoperative QoR-15 score versus volatile anesthetic, after covariate adjustment. CONCLUSION: Breast surgery patients receiving PVB or a combination of regional blocks during surgery have higher postoperative QoR-15 scores, after adjustment for other factors.

A Cohort Study of Emergency Surgery Caseload and Regional Anesthesia Provision at a Tertiary UK Hospital During the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic.

Study objective  Analysis of emergency cases performed during initial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the proportion completed under regional anesthesia (RA). Design Cohort study comparing surgical caseload during initial seven-week COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Comparison was made with pre-COVID-19 caseload over the corresponding seven-week timeframe in 2019. Setting The setting of the study was emergency surgery theaters at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Patients All patients requiring emergency surgery over the defined study period were reviewed with the exception of obstetric and pediatric populations. Interventions Surgical caseload for 2020 and 2019 cohorts established using the Galaxy IT system used to log all operations. All relevant anesthetic charts for the 2020 cohort were subsequently reviewed to ascertain perioperative use of RA. Measurements The type of block, mode of approach, experience of the operator, personal protective equipment (PPE) worn, block complications, type of sedation and complications were entered into database. Main results A total of 338 emergency surgical cases were performed during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, compared to 603 cases over the corresponding period in 2019. This showed a 44% decrease in emergency surgical workload. There was a marked disparity in reduction of surgical caseload by surgical subspecialty. Trauma (137 vs 66 cases), a 52% decrease, and general surgery (193 vs 64 cases), a 66% decrease, were the most pronounced, and explanations for this are explored. RA was performed in 34% (26% as primary technique) of cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of RA as the primary anesthesia technique was noticeably higher than previous UK data (11%), and was prominent in specialties such as general surgery, gynecology and urology, not traditionally completed under RA. Conclusions Surgical RA (and general anesthesia avoidance) has a significant role in the future to ensure high-quality perioperative care for patients whilst minimizing exposure to staff and utilization of scarce resources (PPE).

Impact of parallel processing of regional anesthesia with block rooms on resource utilization and clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Block rooms allow parallel processing of surgical patients with the purported benefits of improving resource utilization and patient outcomes. There is disparity in the literature supporting these suppositions. We aimed to synthesize the evidence base for parallel processing by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was undertaken of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the National Health Service (NHS) National Institute for Health Research Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, and Google Scholar for terms relating to regional anesthesia and block rooms. The primary outcome was anesthesia-controlled time (ACT; time from entry of the patient into the operating room (OR) until the start of surgical prep plus surgical closure to exit of patient from the OR). Secondary outcomes of interest included other resource-utilization parameters such as turnover time (TOT; time between the exit of one patient from the OR and the entry of another), time spent in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), OR throughput, and clinical outcomes such as pain scores, nausea and vomiting, and patient satisfaction. Fifteen studies were included involving 8888 patients, of which 3364 received care using a parallel processing model. Parallel processing reduced ACT by a mean difference (95% CI) of 10.4 min (16.3 to 4.5; p<0.0001), TOT by 16.1 min (27.4 to 4.8; p<0.0001) and PACU stay by 26.6 min (47.1 to 6.1; p=0.01) when compared with serial processing. Moreover, parallel processing increased daily OR throughout by 1.7 cases per day (p<0.0001). Clinical outcomes all favored parallel processing models. All studies showed moderate-to-critical levels of bias. Parallel processing in regional anesthesia appears to reduce the ACT, TOT, PACU time and improved OR throughput when compared with serial processing. PROSPERO CRD42018085184.