A checklist for performing regional nerve blocks.

Regional blocks are frequently invasive procedures that create the risk of infection, local anesthetic toxicity, and wrong-site performance. National guidelines have been developed by the Joint Commission and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) to reduce the potential for each of these risks. Checklists have been shown to reduce errors and complications in medicine: it seems prudent to incorporate the recommended safety steps into a formalized checklist to be reviewed before performance of a regional block. A task force appointed by the ASRA President reviewed available resources and recommendations and performed a survey of RAPM members at the ASRA annual meeting in May 2013 and proposed a 9-point checklist to fulfill this role. Although it is apparent that local modification will be needed, the basic points and principles should be adopted for the performance of regional blocks.

Sustainable, effective implementation of a surgical preprocedural checklist: an "attestation" format for all operating team members.

BACKGROUND: Adoption ofa preprocedural pause (PPP) associated with a checklist and a team briefing has been shown to improve teamwork function in operating rooms (ORs) and has resulted in improved outcomes. The format of the World Health Organization Safe Surgery Saves Lives checklist has been used as a template for a PPP. Performing a PPP, described as a "time-out," is one of the three principal components, along with a preprocedure verification process and marking the procedure site, of the Joint Commission's Universal Protocol for Preventing Wrong Site, Wrong Procedure, Wrong Person Surgery. However, if the surgeon alone leads the pause, its effectiveness may be decreased by lack of input from other operating team members. METHODS: In this study, the PPP was assessed to measure participation and input from operating team members. On the basis of low participation levels, the pause was modified to include an attestation from each member of the team. RESULTS: Preliminary analysis of our surgeon-led pause revealed only 54% completion of all items, which increased to 97% after the intervention. With the new format, operating team members stopped for the pause in 96% of cases, compared with 78% before the change. Operating team members introduced themselves in 94% of cases, compared with 44% before the change. Follow-up analysis showed sustained performance at 18 months after implementation. CONCLUSIONS: A preprocedural checklist format in which each member of the operating team provides a personal attestation can improve pause compliance and may contribute to improvements in the culture of teamwork within an OR. Successful online implementation of a PPP, which includes participation by all operating team members, requires little or no additional expense and only minimal formal coaching outside working situations.

Perioperative care for the older outpatient undergoing ambulatory surgery.

As the number of ambulatory surgery procedures continues to grow in an aging global society, the implementation of evidence-based perioperative care programs for the elderly will assume increased importance. Given the recent advances in anesthesia, surgery, and monitoring technology, the ambulatory setting offers potential advantages for elderly patients undergoing elective surgery. In this review article we summarize the physiologic and pharmacologic effects of aging and their influence on anesthetic drugs, the important considerations in the preoperative evaluation of elderly outpatients with coexisting diseases, the advantages and disadvantages of different anesthetic techniques on a procedural-specific basis, and offer recommendations regarding the management of common postoperative side effects (including delirium and cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, dizziness, pain, and gastrointestinal dysfunction) after ambulatory surgery. We conclude with a discussion of future challenges related to the growth of ambulatory surgery practice in this segment of our surgical population. When information specifically for the elderly population was not available in the peer-reviewed literature, we drew from relevant information in other ambulatory surgery populations.

Management of bladder volumes when using neuraxial anesthesia.

The major principles of management of bladder function during outpatient neuraxial blockade include choice of short-acting local anesthetics, avoidance of adding epinephrine, and reasonable fluid administration (750 to 1000 mL) to avoid overdistention of the bladder. Data suggest that low-risk patients are at no greater risk of retention than after general anesthesia, and may be discharged home with similar instructions regarding return if unable to void. High-risk patients may require closer monitoring with a BUS, and catheter drainage if volumes exceed 600 mL.

American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine checklist for managing local anesthetic systemic toxicity: 2012 version.

In 2010, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) issued a practice advisory on local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). The executive summary of this work contained a document that was intended to serve as a checklist for the management of LAST. Based on testing the checklist during a simulated episode of LAST, ASRA has issued an updated version that should replace the previous 2010 version. Electronic copies of the ASRA Checklist, suitable for lamination and inclusion in a local anesthetic toxicity kit, are available from the ASRA Web site (www.asra.com).

ASRA checklist improves trainee performance during a simulated episode of local anesthetic systemic toxicity.

OBJECTIVE: Severe local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is a rare event, the management of which might best be learned using high-fidelity simulation. In its 2010 Practice Advisory, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) created a medical checklist to aid in the management of LAST. We hypothesized that trainees provided with this checklist would manage a simulated episode of LAST more effectively than those without it. A secondary aim of the study was to assess the ASRA Checklist's usability and readability. METHODS: Trainees undergoing a simulated LAST event were randomized to the checklist group (n = 12) or the no-checklist group (n = 13). Our primary outcome was the number of medical management tasks completed correctly. Secondary outcomes included assessment of the anesthesiologists' nontechnical skills and posttest performance. RESULTS: Trainees receiving the checklist demonstrated superior medical management of the simulated LAST event: the checklist group correctly performed 16.0 (2.6) tasks versus the no-checklist group's 8.8 (3.0) tasks (mean [SD], P < 0.001). The checklist group had higher decision making scores on the anesthesiologists' nontechnical skills assessment (5.2 [1.8] versus 4.0 [1.35] summed rater score, P = 0.037) and had higher knowledge retention 2 months later (P = 0.031). Of those trainees randomized to receive the checklist, 7 of 12 used it fully (versus partially), which was reflected in higher medical and nontechnical performance scores. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the ASRA Checklist significantly improved the trainees' medical management and nontechnical performance during a simulated episode of severe LAST. Partial use of the checklist correlated with lower overall performance.

Daniel C. Moore, MD, and the renaissance of regional anesthesia in North America.

While much attention is paid to the early days of organized regional anesthesia in North America under the leadership of Gaston Labat in New York, there was a period of decline in energy and activity in those techniques after the demise of his original American Society of Regional Anesthesia in 1940. In the years after World War II, questions were raised about the safety and utility of regional blockade. Dr. Daniel C. Moore emerged as a colorful and enthusiastic advocate of regional techniques, effectively leading a renaissance of regional anesthesia interest through his textbook, teaching, and research in Seattle, Washington. His protégés were instrumental in the rebirth of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and the extensive spread of regional anesthesia today.

Lidocaine pretreatment with tourniquet versus lidocaine-propofol admixture for attenuating propofol injection pain: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Findings from studies investigating optimal techniques for attenuating propofol-related injection pain are inconsistent. In previous studies, lidocaine pretreatment using a tourniquet has been reported to be superior, inferior, or equivalent to a lidocaine-propofol admixture for reducing pain. This discordance could represent either no meaningful difference in the treatments or underlying methodological differences in the previous studies. We hypothesized that tourniquet-controlled pretreatment with lidocaine would be superior to lidocaine-propofol admixture for reducing propofol injection pain. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial compared 3 groups-a control group (saline pretreatment/saline admixture; n = 50), a pretreatment group (lidocaine pretreatment/saline admixture; n = 51), and an admixture group (saline pretreatment/lidocaine admixture; n = 50). The primary outcome was verbal pain score after injection. The incidence of pain on injection was explored as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) verbal pain score after study solution injection were as follows-control group: 3 (0-6), pretreatment group: 0 (0-0), and admixture group: 0 (0-2). The pretreatment group had significantly lower pain scores when compared with the admixture group (P = 0.016), and both groups were superior to the control group. The pretreatment group had fewer subjects experiencing any injection pain than did the admixture group (20% vs. 44%, respectively; P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Tourniquet-controlled pretreatment with lidocaine is statistically superior to admixing lidocaine with propofol for reducing propofol injection pain intensity, but the clinical importance of this small effect is questionable. However, pretreatment more effectively eliminates injection pain.

Prevention of local anesthetic systemic toxicity.

Although new drugs and techniques may improve outcomes when unintended high blood levels of local anesthetics occur, the primary focus of daily practice should remain the prevention of such events. Although adoption of no single "safety step" will reliably prevent systemic toxicity, the combination of several procedures seems to have reduced the frequency of systemic toxicity since 1981. These include the use of minimum effective doses, careful aspiration, and incremental injection, coupled with the use of intravascular markers when large doses are used. Epinephrine remains the most widely used and studied marker, but its reliability is impaired in the face of beta-blockade, anesthesia, advanced age, and active labor. As an alternative, the use of subtoxic doses of local anesthetics themselves can produce subjective symptoms in unpremedicated patients. Fentanyl has also been confirmed to produce sedation in pregnant women when used as an alternative. The use of ultrasound observation of needle placement and injection may be useful, but has also been reported as not completely reliable. Constant vigilance and suspicion are still needed along with a combination of as many of these safety steps as practical.

ASRA practice advisory on local anesthetic systemic toxicity.

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice Advisory on Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity assimilates and summarizes current knowledge regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of this potentially fatal complication. It offers evidence-based and/or expert opinion-based recommendations for all physicians and advanced practitioners who routinely administer local anesthetics in potentially toxic doses. The advisory does not address issues related to local anesthetic-related neurotoxicity, allergy, or methemoglobinemia. Recommendations are based primarily on animal and human experimental trials, case series, and case reports. When objective evidence is lacking or incomplete, recommendations are supplemented by expert opinion from the Practice Advisory Panel plus input from other experts, medical specialty groups, and open forum. Specific recommendations are offered for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of local anesthetic systemic toxicity.

Regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy: American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Evidence-Based Guidelines (Third Edition).

The actual incidence of neurologic dysfunction resulting from hemorrhagic complications associated with neuraxial blockade is unknown. Although the incidence cited in the literature is estimated to be less than 1 in 150,000 epidural and less than 1 in 220,000 spinal anesthetics, recent epidemiologic surveys suggest that the frequency is increasing and may be as high as 1 in 3000 in some patient populations.Overall, the risk of clinically significant bleeding increase with age,associated abnormalities of the spinal cord or vertebral column, the presence of an underlying coagulopathy, difficulty during needle placement,and an indwelling neuraxial catheter during sustained anticoagulation( particularly with standard heparin or low-molecular weight heparin). The need for prompt diagnosis and intervention to optimize neurologic outcome is also consistently reported. In response to these patient safety issues, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) convened its Third Consensus Conference on Regional Anesthesia and Anticoagulation. Practice guidelines or recommendations summarize evidence-based reviews. However, the rarity of spinal hematoma defies a prospective randomized study, and there is no current laboratory model. As a result,the ASRA consensus statements represent the collective experience of recognized experts in the field of neuraxial anesthesia and anticoagulation. These are based on case reports, clinical series, pharmacology,hematology, and risk factors for surgical bleeding. An understanding of the complexity of this issue is essential to patient management.

The effect of single-injection femoral nerve block versus continuous femoral nerve block after total knee arthroplasty on hospital length of stay and long-term functional recovery within an established clinical pathway.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may result in severe pain, and single-injection femoral nerve blocks (SFNB) have been demonstrated to have a limited duration of analgesia. Continuous femoral nerve blocks (CFNB) can prolong the analgesic duration of SFNB. We prospectively randomized 36 patients undergoing TKA to CFNB versus SFNB and evaluated the effect on hospital length of stay (LOS) as the primary outcome within a standardized clinical pathway. Secondary outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, opioid consumption, and long-term functional recovery at 12 wk. Mean VAS resting scores were significantly lower among patients who received CFNB versus SFNB: first day (1.7 vs 3.3 [P = 0.002]) and second day (0.9 vs 3.2 [P < 0.0001]) after surgery. Mean maximal VAS scores during physical therapy were significantly lower among patients who received CFNB versus SFNB: first day (4.7 vs 6.3 [P = 0.01]) and second day (3.9 vs 6.1 [P = 0.0005]) after surgery. Mean oxycodone consumption was significantly lower among patients who received CFNB versus SFNB: 15 mg versus 40 mg (P = or < 0.0001) on the first day after surgery; 20 mg versus 43 mg (P = 0.0004) on the second day after surgery. There was no difference in hospital LOS (3.8 vs 3.9 days) or long-term functional recovery (117 degrees versus 113 degrees knee flexion at 12 wk) between the two groups. The lack of effect provided by increased duration of analgesia (from CFNB) after TKA may now have minimal impact on hospital LOS and long-term functional recovery in the contemporary healthcare environment within the United States.