Contrast-enhanced paravertebrogram to confirm paravertebral catheter position in elective thoracic surgery: a proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND: Paravertebral pain catheters have been shown to be equally effective as epidural pain catheters for postoperative analgesia after thoracic surgery with the possible additional benefit of less hemodynamic effect. However, a methodology for verifying correct paravertebral catheter placement has not been tested or objectively confirmed in previous studies. The aim of the current study was to describe a technique to confirm the correct position of a paravertebral pain catheter using a contrast-enhanced paravertebrogram. METHODS: A retrospective cohort proof of concept study was performed including 10 consecutive patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery with radiographic contrast-enhanced confirmation of intraoperative paravertebral catheter placement (paravertebrogram). RESULTS: The results of the paravertebrograms, which were done in the operating room at the end of the procedure, verified correct paravertebral catheter placement in 10 of 10 patients. The radiographs documented dissemination of local anesthetic within the paravertebral space. CONCLUSION: This proof of concept study demonstrated that a contrast-enhanced paravertebrogram could be used in conjunction with standard postoperative chest radiography to add valuable information for the assessment of paravertebral catheter placement. This technique has the potential to increase the accuracy and efficiency of postoperative analgesia, and to set a quality standard for future studies of paravertebral pain catheters.

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block: A Narrative Review.

In this narrative review article, the authors discuss the anatomy, nomenclature, history, approaches (posterior vs. lateral vs. subcostal), techniques, pharmacology, indications, and complications of transversus abdominis plane blocks, as well as possible alternative truncal blocks.Despite the scarcity of evidence and contradictory findings, certain clinical suggestions can nonetheless be made. Overall transversus abdominis plane blocks appear most beneficial in the setting of open appendectomy (posterior or lateral approach). Lateral transversus abdominis plane blocks are not suggested for laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, or open prostatectomy. However, transversus abdominis plane blocks could serve as an analgesic option for Cesarean delivery (posterior or lateral approach) and open colorectal section (subcostal or lateral approach) if there exist contraindications to intrathecal morphine and thoracic epidural analgesia, respectively.Future investigation is required to compare posterior and subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks in clinical settings. Furthermore, posterior transversus abdominis plane blocks should be investigated for surgical interventions in which their lateral counterparts have proven not to be beneficial (e.g., laparoscopic hysterectomy/appendectomy, open prostatectomy). More importantly, because posterior transversus abdominis plane blocks can purportedly provide sympathetic blockade and visceral analgesia, they should be compared with thoracic epidural analgesia for open colorectal surgery. Finally, transversus abdominis plane blocks should be compared with newer truncal blocks (e.g., erector spinae plane and quadratus lumborum blocks) with well-designed and adequately powered trials.

Anaesthetic care of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: consensus recommendations from the International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes. METHODS: The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, 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, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018099935.

American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity checklist: 2020 version.

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) periodically updates its practice advisories and associated cognitive aids. The 2020 version of the ASRA Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity checklist was created in response to user feedback, simulation studies and advances in medical knowledge. This report presents the 2020 version and discusses the rationale for its update.

MRI and muscle enzymes do not support the diagnosis of local anesthetic myotoxicity: a descriptive case series.

BACKGROUND: The presence of thigh muscle edema as characterized by increased signal intensity on MRI has been used to support the diagnosis of presumed local anesthetic-induced myotoxicity reported after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with continuous adductor canal block (CACB). However, neither postoperative baseline imaging appearance nor muscle enzyme values have been described in conjunction with this clinical scenario. Thus, the usefulness of MRI or enzymatic biomarkers of muscle injury for supporting the diagnosis of local anesthetic myotoxicity is unknown. METHODS: This descriptive case series documents postoperative MRI appearance of the ipsilateral upper leg, plus preoperative and postoperative creatine phosphokinase and aldolase values in volunteer patients who underwent uncomplicated TKA with CACB. RESULTS: In 27 volunteer patients with no postsurgical evidence of clinically relevant myotoxicity, anterior thigh muscle edema was universally evident on imaging (n=12) and muscle enzyme values (n=19) were normal or only slightly elevated. CONCLUSIONS: The non-specificity of these findings suggests that MRI and near normal muscle enzyme levels are of limited diagnostic value when there is clinical suspicion of local anesthetic myotoxicity in the setting of TKA with CACB. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04821245.

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.

Evidence versus advocacy, as related to radiofrequency denervation in the treatment of chronic low back pain and the MINT trials.

In 2017, JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of the MINT trials, prospective research involving 681 patients, all of whom received exercise therapy for low back pain. Half of the patients were randomized to additionally receive radiofrequency denervation (RFD) treatment. 88% of patients completed the 3-month follow-up, and 77% completed the 12-month follow-up. In this context, RFD provided no added benefit over the baseline of exercise therapy. In 2018, five authors, all experts in pain medicine, published a 'Daring Discourse' article in the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (RAPM), criticizing the findings of the MINT trials. Although 3 of the 5 authors of the RAPM 'Daring Discourse' article reported in conflict of interest statements-as is appropriate-that they were consultants to corporations that produce RFD equipment, the authors failed to disclose that 4 of 5 are on the editorial board of RAPM and all 5 are current officers in the medical organization that owns RAPM: that is, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Noteworthy, there was no published response from the MINT trial investigators to the Daring Discourse criticisms, either in the aforementioned example or in downstream venues where some of the same Daring Discourse authors continued their widely disseminated criticisms of the JAMA/MINT trials report. We believe that these actions taken by the Daring Discourse authors and RAPM have unfairly tipped the scales in the evaluation and application of RFD treatment of low back pain. In our commentary, we discuss: (1) the challenges associated with using clinical trials to predict clinical efficacy, (2) appropriate and inappropriate uses of postpublication commentary on original research findings, (3) the use of inappropriate commentary (and related means) to alter clinical practice in the presence of contradictory research findings, and (4) potential conflicts of interest related to the authors' and Journal's publication of the unopposed MINT trials criticism.

History and evolution of regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine fellowship training.

INTRODUCTION: In 2016, individual training programs in regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RA/APM) became eligible for accreditation by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), thereby culminating a process that began 15 years earlier. Herein, we review the origins of regional anesthesia training in the USA, the events leading up to accreditation and the current state of the fellowship. METHODS: We reviewed pertinent literature on the historical aspects of RA/APM in the USA, related subspecialty training and the formation and current state of RA/APM fellowship training programs. Additionally, a survey was distributed to the directors of the 74 RA/APM fellowships that existed as of 1 January 2017 to gather up-to-date, program-specific information. RESULTS: The survey yielded a 76% response rate. Mayo Clinic Rochester and Virginia Mason Medical Center likely had the first structured RA/APM fellowships with formalized curriculums and stated objectives, both starting in 1982. Most programs (86%), including ACGME and non-ACGME fellowships, came into existence after the year 2000. Six responding programs have or previously had RA/APM comingled with another subspecialty. Eight current programs originally offered unofficial or part-time fellowships in RA/APM, with fellows also practicing as attending physicians. DISCUSSION: The history of RA/APM training in the USA is a tortuous one. It began with short 'apprenticeships' under the tutelage of the early proponents of regional anesthesia and continues today with 84 official RA/APM programs and a robust fellowship directors' group. RA/APM programs teach skills essential to the practice and improvement of anesthesiology as a specialty.

Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity: A Narrative Literature Review and Clinical Update on Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this narrative review of local anesthetic systemic toxicity is to provide an update on its prevention, diagnosis, and management. METHODS: The authors used a MEDLINE search of human studies, animal studies, and case reports and summarize findings following the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine practice advisories on local anesthetic systemic toxicity. RESULTS: Between March of 2014 and November of 2016, there were 47 cases of systemic toxicity described. Twenty-two patients (47 percent) were treated with intravenous lipid emulsion and two patients (4.3 percent) died. Seizures were the most common presentation. The spectrum of presenting neurologic and cardiovascular symptoms and signs are broad and can be obscured by perioperative processes. Local anesthetic type, dosage, and volume; site of injection; and patient comorbidities influence the rate of absorption from the site of injection and biodegradation of local anesthetics. Consider discussing appropriate dosages as a component of the surgical "time-out." A large-volume depot of dilute local anesthetic can take hours before reaching peak plasma levels. Oxygenation, ventilation, and advanced cardiac life support are the first priorities in treatment. Lipid emulsion therapy should be given at the first sign of serious systemic toxicity with an initial bolus dose of 100 ml for adults weighing greater than 70 kg and 1.5 ml/kg for adults weighing less than 70 kg or for children. CONCLUSION: All physicians who administer local anesthetics should be educated regarding the nature of systemic toxicity and contemporary management algorithms that include lipid emulsion therapy.

Lower extremity regional anesthesia: essentials of our current understanding.

The advent of ultrasound guidance has led to a renewed interest in regional anesthesia of the lower limb. In keeping with the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine's ongoing commitment to provide intensive evidence-based education, this article presents a complete update of the 2005 comprehensive review on lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks. The current review article strives to (1) summarize the pertinent anatomy of the lumbar and sacral plexuses, (2) discuss the optimal approaches and techniques for lower limb regional anesthesia, (3) present evidence to guide the selection of pharmacological agents and adjuvants, (4) describe potential complications associated with lower extremity nerve blocks, and (5) identify informational gaps pertaining to outcomes, which warrant further investigation.

Selective Epidurography for the Assessment of Epidural Catheter Placement After Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Adequate pain control immediately after esophagostomy is critical to patient recovery and may be compromised by uncertainty regarding correct epidural catheter placement. The aim of the current study was to determine the role of performing an epidurogram in selective patients to assess epidural placement after esophagectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing esophagectomy in a high-volume center were retrospectively reviewed to identify those in whom an epidurogram was performed less than 24 hours after surgery. Since 2012 epidurograms have been selectively performed in patients and have demonstrated features concerning for incorrect epidural catheter placement, including difficult/complicated insertion, negative sensory test, nonreassuring intraoperative hemodyamic response, and inadequate postoperative pain control. RESULTS: Fifty-two of 192 patients (27%; 43 men; age 65 ± 11 years) who underwent esophagostomy since 2012 had an epidurogram. Epidurograms were not associated with any adverse events. In 21 patients (40%) epidurogram findings led to a direct change in patient management, prompting either removal/replacement of an incorrectly sited catheter (n = 9), partial withdrawal of a catheter associated with unilateral contrast distribution (n = 2), or by endorsing a clinical decision to modify the analgesic regimen in a patient with a correctly sited epidural catheter (n = 10). Identifying and rescuing incorrect epidural catheter placement was not associated with longer intensive care unit/hospital stay or postoperative morbidity (p > 0.05) CONCLUSIONS: We reviewed selective epidurogram use in esophagectomy patients to determine its role in "rescuing" inadequate pain control through expediting clinical decision-making. Findings confirm that in selected patients epidurography is feasible and has the potential to directly contribute to patient care.

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Checklist for Managing Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity: 2017 Version.

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) periodically revises and updates its checklist for the management of local anesthetic systemic toxicity. The 2017 update replaces the 2012 version and reflects new information contained in the third ASRA Practice Advisory on Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity. Electronic copies of the ASRA checklist can be downloaded from the ASRA Web site (www.asra.com) for inclusion in local anesthetic toxicity rescue kits or perioperative checklist repositories.

The Third American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice Advisory on Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity: Executive Summary 2017.

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine's Third Practice Advisory on local anesthetic systemic toxicity is an interim update from its 2010 advisory. The advisory focuses on new information regarding the mechanisms of lipid resuscitation, updated frequency estimates, the preventative role of ultrasound guidance, changes to case presentation patterns, and limited information related to local infiltration anesthesia and liposomal bupivacaine. In addition to emerging information, the advisory updates recommendations pertaining to prevention, recognition, and treatment of local anesthetic systemic toxicity. WHAT'S NEW IN THIS UPDATE?: This interim update summarizes recent scientific findings that have enhanced our understanding of the mechanisms that lead to lipid emulsion reversal of LAST, including rapid partitioning, direct inotropy, and post-conditioning. Since the previous practice advisory, epidemiological data have emerged that suggest a lower frequency of LAST as reported by single institutions and some registries, nevertheless a considerable number of events still occur within the general community. Contemporary case reports suggest a trend toward delayed presentation, which may mirror the increased use of ultrasound guidance (fewer intravascular injections), local infiltration techniques (slower systemic uptake), and continuous local anesthetic infusions. Small patient size and sarcopenia are additional factors that increase potential risk for LAST. An increasing number of reported events occur outside of the traditional hospital setting and involve non-anesthesiologists.

The role of the anesthesiologist in fast-track surgery: from multimodal analgesia to perioperative medical care.

BACKGROUND: Improving perioperative efficiency and throughput has become increasingly important in the modern practice of anesthesiology. Fast-track surgery represents a multidisciplinary approach to improving perioperative efficiency by facilitating recovery after both minor (i.e., outpatient) and major (inpatient) surgery procedures. In this article we focus on the expanding role of the anesthesiologist in fast-track surgery. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of clinical investigators met at McGill University in the Fall of 2005 to discuss current anesthetic and surgical practices directed at improving the postoperative recovery process. A subgroup of the attendees at this conference was assigned the task of reviewing the peer-reviewed literature on this topic as it related to the role of the anesthesiologist as a perioperative physician. RESULTS: Anesthesiologists as perioperative physicians play a key role in fast-track surgery through their choice of preoperative medication, anesthetics and techniques, use of prophylactic drugs to minimize side effects (e.g., pain, nausea and vomiting, dizziness), as well as the administration of adjunctive drugs to maintain major organ system function during and after surgery. CONCLUSION: The decisions of the anesthesiologist as a key perioperative physician are of critical importance to the surgical care team in developing a successful fast-track surgery program.