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.

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.

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.

Oral tranexamic acid for an additional 24 hours postoperatively versus a single preoperative intravenous dose for reducing blood loss in total hip arthroplasty: results of a randomized controlled trial (TRAC-24).

AIMS: A typical pattern of blood loss associated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) is 200 ml intraoperatively and 1.3 l in the first 48 postoperative hours. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is most commonly given as a single preoperative dose only and is often withheld from patients with a history of thromboembolic disease as they are perceived to be "high-risk" with respect to postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). The TRanexamic ACid for 24 hours trial (TRAC-24) aimed to identify if an additional 24-hour postoperative TXA regime could further reduce blood loss beyond a once-only dose at the time of surgery, without excluding these high-risk patients. METHODS: TRAC-24 was a prospective, phase IV, single centre, open label, parallel group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving patients undergoing primary unilateral elective THA. The primary outcome measure was the indirect calculated blood loss (IBL) at 48 hours. The patients were randomized into three groups. Group 1 received 1 g intravenous (IV) TXA at the time of surgery and an additional oral regime for 24 hours postoperatively, group 2 only received the intraoperative dose, and group 3 did not receive any TXA. RESULTS: A total of 534 patients were randomized, with 233 in group 1, 235 in group 2, and 66 in group 3; 92 patients (17.2%) were considered high-risk. The mean IBL did not differ significantly between the two intervention groups (848.4 ml (SD 463.8) for group 1, and 843.7 ml (SD 478.7) for group 2; mean difference -4.7 ml (95% confidence interval -82.9 to 92.3); p = 0.916). No differences in mortality or incidence of VTE were observed between any group. CONCLUSION: The addition of oral TXA for 24 hours postoperatively does not reduce blood loss beyond that achieved with a single 1 g IV perioperative dose alone. There may be a clinically relevant difference in patients with a normal BMI, which warrants further investigation. Critically, there were no safety issues in patients with a history of thromboembolic, cardiovascular, or cerebrovascular disease. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1197-1205.

Oral tranexamic acid for an additional 24 hours postoperatively versus a single preoperative intravenous dose for reducing blood loss in total knee arthroplasty: results of a randomized controlled trial (TRAC-24).

AIMS: In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), blood loss continues internally after surgery is complete. Typically, the total loss over 48 postoperative hours can be around 1,300 ml, with most occurring within the first 24 hours. We hypothesize that the full potential of tranexamic acid (TXA) to decrease TKA blood loss has not yet been harnessed because it is rarely used beyond the intraoperative period, and is usually withheld from 'high-risk' patients with a history of thromboembolic, cardiovascular, or cerebrovascular disease, a patient group who would benefit greatly from a reduced blood loss. METHODS: TRAC-24 was a prospective, phase IV, single-centre, open label, parallel group, randomized controlled trial on patients undergoing TKA, including those labelled as high-risk. The primary outcome was indirect calculated blood loss (IBL) at 48 hours. Group 1 received 1 g intravenous (IV) TXA at the time of surgery and an additional 24-hour postoperative oral regime of four 1 g doses, while Group 2 only received the intraoperative dose and Group 3 did not receive any TXA. RESULTS: Between July 2016 and July 2018, 552 patients were randomized to either Group 1 (n = 241), Group 2 (n = 243), or Group 3 (n = 68), and 551 were included in the final analysis. The blood loss did differ significantly between the two intervention groups (733.5 ml (SD 384.0) for Group 1 and 859.2 ml (SD 363.6 ml) for Group 2; mean difference -125.8 ml (95% confidence interval -194.0 to -57.5; p < 0.001). No differences in mortality or thromboembolic events were observed in any group. CONCLUSION: These data support the hypothesis that in TKA, a TXA regime consisting of IV 1 g perioperatively and four oral 1 g doses over 24 hours postoperatively significantly reduces blood loss beyond that achieved with a single IV 1 g perioperative dose alone. TXA appears safe in patients with history of thromboembolic, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular disease. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1595-1603.

American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine expert panel recommendations on point-of-care ultrasound education and training for regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians-part II: recommendations.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a critical skill for all regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians to help diagnose relevant complications related to routine practice and guide perioperative management. In an effort to inform the regional anesthesia and pain community as well as address a need for structured education and training, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Society (ASRA) commissioned this narrative review to provide recommendations for POCUS. The recommendations were written by content and educational experts and were approved by the guidelines committee and the Board of Directors of the ASRA. In part II of this two-part series, learning goals and objectives were identified and outlined for achieving competency in the use of POCUS, specifically, airway ultrasound, lung ultrasound, gastric ultrasound, the focus assessment with sonography for trauma exam, and focused cardiac ultrasound, in the perioperative and chronic pain setting. It also discusses barriers to POCUS education and training and proposes a list of educational resources. For each POCUS section, learning goals and specific skills were presented in the Indication, Acquisition, Interpretation, and Medical decision-making framework.

American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine expert panel recommendations on point-of-care ultrasound education and training for regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians-part I: clinical indications.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a critical skill for all regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians to help diagnose relevant complications related to routine practice and guide perioperative management. In an effort to inform the regional anesthesia and pain community as well as address a need for structured education and training, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) commissioned this narrative review to provide recommendations for POCUS. The guidelines were written by content and educational experts and approved by the Guidelines Committee and the Board of Directors of the ASRA. In part I of this two-part series, clinical indications for POCUS in the perioperative and chronic pain setting are described. The clinical review addresses airway ultrasound, lung ultrasound, gastric ultrasound, the focus assessment with sonography for trauma examination and focused cardiac ultrasound for the regional anesthesiologist and pain physician. It also provides foundational knowledge regarding ultrasound physics, discusses the impact of handheld devices and finally, offers insight into the role of POCUS in the pediatric population.

Recovery of consciousness and cognition after general anesthesia in humans.

Understanding how the brain recovers from unconsciousness can inform neurobiological theories of consciousness and guide clinical investigation. To address this question, we conducted a multicenter study of 60 healthy humans, half of whom received general anesthesia for 3 hr and half of whom served as awake controls. We administered a battery of neurocognitive tests and recorded electroencephalography to assess cortical dynamics. We hypothesized that recovery of consciousness and cognition is an extended process, with differential recovery of cognitive functions that would commence with return of responsiveness and end with return of executive function, mediated by prefrontal cortex. We found that, just prior to the recovery of consciousness, frontal-parietal dynamics returned to baseline. Consistent with our hypothesis, cognitive reconstitution after anesthesia evolved over time. Contrary to our hypothesis, executive function returned first. Early engagement of prefrontal cortex in recovery of consciousness and cognition is consistent with global neuronal workspace theory.

Anesthesia is a state of reversable, controlled unconsciousness. It has enabled countless medical procedures. But it also serves as a tool for scientists to study how the brain regains consciousness after disruptions such as sleep, coma or medical procedures requiring general anesthesia. It is still unclear how exactly the brain regains consciousness, and less so, why some patients do not recover normally after general anesthesia or fail to recover from brain injury. To find out more, Mashour et al. studied the patterns of reemerging consciousness and cognitive function in 30 healthy adults who underwent general anesthesia for three hours. While the volunteers were under anesthesia, their brain activity was measured with an EEG; and their sleep-wake activity was measured before and after the experiment. Each participant took part in a series of cognitive tests designed to measure the reaction speed, memory and other functions before receiving anesthesia, right after the return of consciousness, and then every 30 minutes thereafter. Thirty healthy volunteers who did not have anesthesia also completed the scans and tests as a comparison group. The experiments showed that certain normal EEG patterns resumed just before a person wakes up from anesthesia. The return of thinking abilities was an extended, multistep process, but volunteers recovered their cognitive abilities to nearly the same level as the volunteers within three hours of being deeply anesthetized. Mashour et al. also unexpectedly found that abstract problem-solving resumes early in the process, while other functions such as reaction time and attention took longer to recover. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Sleep leaves individuals vulnerable. Quick evaluation and decision-making skills would be key to respond to a threat upon waking. The experiments confirm that the front of the brain, which handles thinking and decision-making, was especially active around the time of recovery. This suggests that therapies targeting this part of the brain may help people who experience loss of consciousness after a brain injury or have difficulties waking up after anesthesia. Moreover, disorders of cognition, such as delirium, in the days following surgery may be caused by factors other than the lingering effects of anesthetic drugs on the brain.

Anaesthesia Choice for Creation of Arteriovenous Fistula (ACCess) study protocol : a randomised controlled trial comparing primary unassisted patency at 1 year of primary arteriovenous fistulae created under regional compared to local anaesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) are the 'gold standard' vascular access for haemodialysis. Universal usage is limited, however, by a high early failure rate. Several small, single-centre studies have demonstrated better early patency rates for AVF created under regional anaesthesia (RA) compared with local anaesthesia (LA). The mechanistic hypothesis is that the sympathetic blockade associated with RA causes vasodilatation and increased blood flow through the new AVF. Despite this, considerable variation in practice exists in the UK. A high-quality, adequately powered, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) is required to definitively inform practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Anaesthesia Choice for Creation of Arteriovenous Fistula (ACCess) study is a multicentre, observer-blinded RCT comparing primary radiocephalic/brachiocephalic AVF created under regional versus LA. The primary outcome is primary unassisted AVF patency at 1 year. Access-specific (eg, stenosis/thrombosis), patient-specific (including health-related quality of life) and safety secondary outcomes will be evaluated. Health economic analysis will also be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ACCess study has been approved by the West of Scotland Research and ethics committee number 3 (20/WS/0178). Results will be published in open-access peer-reviewed journals within 12 months of completion of the trial. We will also present our findings at key national and international renal and anaesthetic meetings, and support dissemination of trial outcomes via renal patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14153938. SPONSOR: NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde GN19RE456, Protocol V.1.3 (8 May 2021), REC/IRAS ID: 290482.

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.

Peripheral nerve block anesthesia/analgesia for patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: recommendations from the International Consensus on Anesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery (ICAROS) group based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis: randomized controlled and observational studies investigating the impact of PNB utilization on major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, neurologic, infectious, and bleeding complications.Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were queried from 1946 to August 4, 2020.The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality and for the development of recommendations. RESULTS: Analysis of 122 studies revealed that PNB use (compared with no use) was associated with lower ORs for (OR with 95% CIs) for numerous complications (total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), respectively): cognitive dysfunction (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53/OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80), respiratory failure (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74/OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75), cardiac complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93/OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), surgical site infections (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64/OR 0.86 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), thromboembolism (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96/OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and blood transfusion (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86/OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current body of evidence, the consensus group recommends PNB use in THA/TKA for improved outcomes. RECOMMENDATION: PNB use is recommended for patients undergoing THA and TKA except when contraindications preclude their use. Furthermore, the alignment of provider skills and practice location resources needs to be ensured. Evidence level: moderate; recommendation: strong.

Assessment of the effect of addition of 24 hours of oral tranexamic acid post-operatively to a single intraoperative intravenous dose of tranexamic acid on calculated blood loss following primary hip and knee arthroplasty (TRAC-24): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While it is has been proven that tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces blood loss in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA), there is little published evidence on the use of TXA beyond 3 h post-operatively. Most blood loss occurs after wound closure and the primary aim of this study is to determine if the use of oral TXA post-operatively for up to 24 h will reduce calculated blood loss at 48 h beyond an intra-operative intravenous bolus alone following primary THA and TKA. To date, most TXA studies have excluded patients with a history of thromboembolic disease. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a phase IV, single-centred, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Participants are randomised to one of three groups: group 1, an intravenous (IV) bolus of TXA peri-operatively plus oral TXA post-operatively for 24 h; group 2, an IV bolus of TXA peri-operatively or group 3, standard care (no TXA). Eligible participants, including those with a history of thromboembolic disease, are allocated to these groups with a 2:2:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome is the indirectly calculated blood loss 48 h after surgery. Researchers and patients are not blinded to the treatment; however, staff processing blood samples are. Originally 1166 participants were required to complete this study, 583 THA and 583 TKA. However, following an interim analysis after 100 THA and 100 TKA participants had been recruited to the study, the data monitoring ethics committee recommended stopping group 3 (standard care). DISCUSSION: TRAC-24 will help to determine whether an extended TXA dosing regimen can further reduce blood loss following primary THA and TKA. By including patients with a history of thromboembolic disease, this study will add to our understanding of the safety profile of TXA in this clinical situation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN58790500 . Registered on 3 June 2016, EudraCT: 2015-002661-36.

Does Regional Anesthesia Improve the Quality of Postoperative Pain Management and the Quality of Recovery in Patients Undergoing Operative Repair of Tibia and Ankle Fractures?

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the use of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) as part of an analgesic protocol for operative repair of tibia and ankle fractures can improve the quality of postoperative pain management and the quality of recovery (QOR). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Orthopedic trauma service in an academic tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Ninety-three consecutive patients undergoing operative repair of fractures of the ankle and tibia. INTERVENTION: Administration of popliteal and saphenous nerve blocks, as part of postoperative analgesia regimen in some patients. Patients were labeled as the regional group or the no-regional group based on whether they received PNBs. OUTCOMES: Patient satisfaction and the quality of pain management were measured 24 hours after surgery using the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire. The QOR was measured at 24 and 48 hours after surgery using the short version of the Quality of Recovery Questionnaire (QOR-9). RESULTS: Satisfaction with pain management was significantly higher (P = 0.005) in the regional group when compared with the no-regional group. Average pain scores over 24 hours was similar between the 2 groups (P = 0.07). The regional group reported less time spent in severe pain over 24-hour period (40 vs. 50%, P = 0.04) and higher overall perception of pain relief (80 vs. 65%, P = 0.003). Patients receiving regional anesthesia also demonstrated better QOR measured by the QOR-9 at 24 hours (P = 0.04) but not at 48 hours (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction and the quality of postoperative pain management for the first 24 hours were better in patients who received PNBs as part of their postoperative analgesic regimen when compared with patients who received only systemic analgesia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Physicians overestimate patient's knowledge of the process of informed consent: a cross-sectional study.

AIM: To evaluate the differences in the knowledge and attitudes of physicians and patients regarding the informed consent process. METHODS: After institutional approval was obtained cohorts of 269 physicians and 265 patients completed a voluntary multiple-choice questionnaire on the informed consent process. RESULTS: Most of the responses between physicians and patients were significantly different. A total of 77 physicians (30.7%) reported that they personally informed patients about their medical condition and forthcoming clinical procedures in detail and 138 (55%) informed patients as much as necessary. Only 29 patients (11%) reported being informed in detail, and 186 (70.2%) reported that they received only basic information (P < 0.001). Although 132 physicians (52.6%) reported that their patients received sufficient information to be able to decide on their treatment, only 31 patient (11.7%) reported the same (P < 0.001). Half of the doctors (126, 50.2%) reported that they informed their patients in detail on the possible consequences of treatment refusal whereas 23 patients (8.7%) were given such information. CONCLUSION: There is a great discrepancy between physicians and patients concerning both understanding and knowledge of the informed consent process. The physicians have evaluated their practice of giving information and obtaining informed consent to be more detailed than their patients. The results of this study reflect the need for better communication between doctors and patients as well as physician and patient education programs on the process of informed consent.

Sugammadex: a selective relaxant binding agent for reversal of neuromuscular block.

Neostigmine, the currently used agent for reversal of neuromuscular block, has several drawbacks, such as a slow onset of peak effect, inability to reverse deep block and the occurrence of widespread muscarinic effects. Sugammadex is a new class of reversal agent that acts by encapsulating the molecules of the relaxants rocuronium and vecuronium, for which it is a specific antagonist. Clinical trials in over 2000 subjects have shown it to be effective for reversal of block by these two relaxants even from deep levels, in doses of 2.0-4.0 mg/kg. Sugammadex can also reverse an intense (profound) high-dose rocuronium block, but the dose required in this situation is 16.0 mg/kg. The agent has been found to be safe so far, with few side effects.