Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring in Clinical Practice: A Professional Practice Change Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Residual neuromuscular blockade can be avoided with quantitative neuromuscular monitoring. The authors embarked on a professional practice initiative to attain documented train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 0.90 in all patients for improved patient outcomes through reducing residual paralysis. METHODS: The authors utilized equipment trials, educational videos, quantitative monitors in all anesthetizing locations, and electronic clinical decision support with real-time alerts, and initiated an ongoing professional practice metric. This was a retrospective assessment (2016 to 2020) of train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 0.9 that were documented before extubation. Anesthesia records were manually reviewed for neuromuscular blockade management details. Medical charts of surgical patients who received a neuromuscular blocking drug were electronically searched for patient characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: From pre- to postimplementation, more patients were assigned American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status III to V, fewer were inpatients, the rocuronium average dose was higher, and more patients had a prereversal train-of-four count less than 4. Manually reviewed anesthesia records (n = 2,807) had 2 of 172 (1%) cases with documentation of train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 0.90 in November 2016, which was fewer than the cases in December 2020 (250 of 269 [93%]). Postimplementation (February 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020), sugammadex (650 of 935 [70%]), neostigmine (195 of 935 [21%]), and no reversal (90 of 935 [10%]) were used to attain train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 0.90 in 856 of 935 (92%) of patients. In the electronically searched medical charts (n = 20,181), postimplementation inpatients had shorter postanesthesia care unit lengths of stay (7% difference; median [in min] [25th, 75th interquartile range], 73 [55, 102] to 68 [49, 95]; P < 0.001), pulmonary complications were less (43% difference; 94 of 4,138 [2.3%] to 23 of 1,817 [1.3%]; P = 0.010; -1.0% difference [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3%]), and hospital length of stay was shorter (median [in days] [25th, 75th], 3 [2, 5] to 2 [1, 4]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this professional practice initiative, documentation of train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 0.90 occurred for 93% of patients in a busy clinical practice. Return-of-strength documentation is an intermediate outcome, and only one of many factors contributing to patient outcomes.

Fluoroscopic evaluation of contrast distribution within the adductor canal.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This case series assesses the in vivo spread of contrast within the adductor canal in subjects who recently underwent a total knee arthroplasty. A previous analysis of profound leg weakness with a continuous adductor canal revealed contrast spread from the adductor canal to the femoral triangle with as little as 2 mL of volume. METHODS: We enrolled 10 American Society of Anesthesiologists class II-III subjects. Maximum voluntary isometric contraction was measured to assess quadriceps strength before and after surgery. Contrast was then injected continuously via electronic pump into the adductor canal, and fluoroscopy was used to capture images after 1-mL increments. For analysis, the femur was divided into 8 equidistant sectors between the lesser trochanter and medial epicondyle. RESULTS: Contrast did not reach the level of the lesser trochanter or the medial epicondyle of the femur in any subject. The greatest spread after 5 mL of contrast was 4 sectors. Sixty percent of subjects had contrast spread within either the same sector as the catheter tip or 1 sector distally. No subjects demonstrated additional proximal spread of contrast after 4 mL. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that in vivo continuous infusions within the adductor canal spread in both a cephalad and caudad direction in limited fashion. Although a previous report described proximal spread of injectate to the level of the common femoral nerve, this event is infrequent.

A comparison of regional versus general anesthesia for ambulatory anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Both regional anesthesia and general anesthesia have been proposed to provide optimal ambulatory anesthesia. We searched MEDLINE and other databases for randomized controlled trials comparing regional anesthesia and general anesthesia in ambulatory surgery patients for meta-analysis. Only major conduction blocks were considered to be regional anesthesia. Regional anesthesia was further separated into central neuraxial block and peripheral nerve block. Fifteen (1003 patients) and 7 (359 patients) trials for central neuraxial block and peripheral nerve block were included in the meta-analysis. Both central neuraxial block and peripheral nerve block were associated with increased induction time, reduced pain scores, and decreased need for postanesthesia care unit analgesics. However, central neuraxial block was not associated with decreased postanesthesia care unit bypass or time or reduced nausea despite reduced analgesics, and it was associated with a 35-min increase in total ambulatory surgery unit time. In contrast, peripheral nerve block was associated with decreased postanesthesia care unit need and decreased nausea but, again, not with decreased ambulatory surgery unit time. This meta-analysis indicates potential advantages for regional anesthesia, such as decreased postanesthesia care unit use, nausea, and postoperative pain. Although these factors have been proposed to reduce ambulatory surgery unit stay, neither central neuraxial block nor peripheral nerve block were associated with reduced ambulatory surgery unit time. Other factors, such as unsuitable discharge criteria and limitations of meta-analysis, may explain this discrepancy.