RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a novel regional anaesthesia technique that has been proposed as an effective motor-sparing block for total hip arthroplasty. Recent randomised studies show conflicting results regarding the analgesic efficacy of the PENG block for total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: We conducted a randomised controlled observer-blinded single-centre superiority trial comparing the efficacy of the PENG block with no block for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia. All subjects received multimodal analgesia consisting of paracetamol and celecoxib. The primary outcome was quality of recovery (QoR) at 24 h as measured by the QoR-15 questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 112 participants (56 in each group) were included in the analysis. The median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) 24-h QoR-15 scores were higher in subjects who received a PENG block (132 [116-138]) compared with subjects who did not (103 [97-112]) with a median difference of 26 (95% confidence interval, 18-31; P<0.001). Similarly, QoR-15 at 48 h was higher in the PENG group, and opioid use at 24 and 48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in the PENG group. However, we did not find significant differences in pain score, distance to ambulation, or anti-emetic use at any time point. We did not observe any PENG block-related complications. CONCLUSION: Adding a PENG block to a multimodal analgesia regimen that includes paracetamol and celecoxib improves the quality of recovery and reduces opioid requirements for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04591353.
Assuntos
Raquianestesia , Artroplastia de Quadril , Humanos , Raquianestesia/métodos , Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Acetaminofen/uso terapêutico , Nervo Femoral , Artroplastia de Quadril/efeitos adversos , Celecoxib/uso terapêutico , Dor Pós-Operatória/prevenção & controle , Dor Pós-Operatória/etiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted residency recruitment in 2020, posing unique challenges for programs and applicants alike. Anesthesiology programs have adopted alternate methods of recruitment, including virtual open houses and social media, due to limiting personal contact rules implemented by AAMC. This study was undertaken to determine the frequency of virtual events hosted and social media accounts created by programs. METHODS: Anesthesiology residency programs and departments were examined for social media presence on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Programs' websites and social media posts were reviewed for virtual open house opportunities. Available sub-internships were collected from the Visiting Student Application Service database. Data was collected after 2020-2021 pre-interview recruitment in October 2020. RESULTS: Of 153 total anesthesiology residency programs, 96 (63%) had some form of social media presence. The platforms of choice for programs with social media accounts included Twitter (71, or 46%), Instagram (67, or 44%), and Facebook (47, or 31%). Forty of seventy-six residency-affiliated accounts were created after March 1, 2020; Instagram accounts (26 of 40) represented most of these. Most Anesthesiology programs (59%) offered virtual open houses for prospective applicants. Twitter (25%), Instagram (22%), and Facebook (8%) were used by programs to advertise these events. CONCLUSIONS: Social media presence of anesthesiology residency programs has grown steadily over the past decade, with exponential growth experienced in 2020. This data suggests that anesthesiology residency programs are employing new, mostly virtual, methods to reach prospective applicants during an unprecedented application cycle amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Assuntos
Anestesiologia , COVID-19 , Internato e Residência , Mídias Sociais , Humanos , Pandemias , Estudos Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on the practice of medicine worldwide, particularly in anesthesiology. As the clinical realm has rapidly adjusted to the realities of the pandemic, anesthesiology literature has also changed significantly to reflect this. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on anesthesiology literature. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the COVID-19-related literature in the anesthesiology community would gain more interest than non-COVID-19-related articles. A total of 15 anesthesiology-related journals with the highest impact factor in 2019, according to the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), were selected for data collection. An advanced PubMed search identified 5,722 COVID-19-related articles published by these journals in 2020. Next, articles with titles including "corona," "COVID," "COVID-19," "pandemic," "SARS," or "SARS-CoV-2" were selected for inclusion in the study, which resulted in 676 (12%) articles. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the Altmetric score, which is a weighted calculation of the attention an article receives online, for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 articles. Articles were then further characterized across multiple different variables, including country of origin, month published, type of article, and subspecialty of anesthesiology it pertained to. Of the 15 journals investigated, 676 (12%) articles of the 5,722 total articles published were found to be COVID-19-related material. The majority of the articles were found to be published in April (18%), May (19.5%), and June (14%). The majority of these articles were related either to general anesthesia (operating room anesthesiology that is not tied to a particular subspecialty fellowship track) (48%) or critical care (39%). By article type, most were determined to be editorial (71%) in nature, followed by original research articles (21%), of which most were cross-sectional (55%) studies. When compared with non-COVID-19-related articles, COVID-19-related articles had a significantly greater Altmetric score (29.518 versus 8.6333, p < 0.001). Of the COVID-19-related articles, original articles had the greatest Altmetric score, when compared to editorials and guidelines (54.794 versus 20.777 versus 40.643, p < 0.002). The response of the academic anesthesiology community to the COVID-19 pandemic was strong and timely, with a particularly strong focus on critical care anesthesia. The impact of the pandemic was strongly felt by the anesthesiology community, and their timely response served to guide our country and world through an incredibly challenging time. The pandemic highlighted the value of anesthesiologists worldwide, not only in the operating room setting but particularly as critical care physicians.
RESUMO
Background The management of pain in patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of distal radius fractures (DRFs) remains an area of debate for anesthesiologists due to a variety of block options and no definitive superior technique among these modalities. In this retrospective case series, we compare the efficacy of supraclavicular versus infraclavicular regional nerve blocks for surgical patients undergoing distal radial ORIF operations to determine if one approach was superior. Methodology This retrospective case series included patients undergoing ORIF of a DRF at a tertiary academic medical center between April 28, 2016, and August 23, 2021. In total, 54 patients undergoing ORIF of a DRF provided written consent for the nerve block(s) on the day of surgery. Of these 54 patients, 54 (100%) underwent primary procedures. Of the 54 primary ORIF patients, 28 (52%) received the supraclavicular block, while 26 (48%) received the infraclavicular nerve block. Results The infraclavicular and supraclavicular groups did not significantly differ regarding age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists, weight, or body mass index. The primary (intraoperative opioid use) and secondary (postoperative opioid use, postoperative nausea and vomiting in the post-anesthetic care unit, highest and average pain scores, and time to discharge) outcomes data were included in the study. The infraclavicular and supraclavicular groups did not significantly differ in any of the assessed outcomes except for time to discharge. Conclusions The supraclavicular block approach for distal radius ORIF offers an effective and non-inferior alternative to the infraclavicular block approach concerning effective analgesia and safety.
RESUMO
The management of pain in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for chronic knee osteoarthritis (OA) has remained a challenge for the anesthesiologist regarding regional anesthesia as no single regional technique is adequate with regard to balancing effective analgesia with minimal muscle weakness. Severe postoperative pain following TKA has been shown to negatively impact patient outcomes and mortality. The genicular nerve block has recently been demonstrated to provide effective analgesia to the anterior and posterior knee capsule in recent studies. In this retrospective case series, we compare the efficacy of combined genicular nerve block (GNB) and adductor canal block (ACB) to only ACB in both primary and revision TKA patients. This combined novel approach for TKA patients can be utilized to improve patient pain scores and early ambulation, limiting the use of opioids and early discharge.
RESUMO
Perioperative pain management for thoracic surgery plays a vital role in recovery and improved outcomes. In this retrospective study we compare three different regional anesthesia techniques utilized at one institute to provide postoperative analgesia for thoracic surgery. Continuous thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) and erector spinae plane (ESP) block are compared for postoperative pain management, opioid requirements, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), respiratory events and length of stay. In this study, pairwise comparisons were also performed among the regional techniques with respect to mentioned outcomes.
RESUMO
The prosperous financial relationship between physicians and industry remains a highly scrutinized topic. Recently, a publicly available website was developed in conjunction with the U.S. Affordable Care Act to shed light on payments from industry to physicians with the goal of increasing transparency. The purpose of this study was to assess possible relationships between industry payments and orthopaedic surgeon gender, subspecialty training, and practice settings. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using publicly available information from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to identify the 25 orthopaedic surgeons with the highest compensation from each of the 10 largest orthopaedic companies from 2013 to 2017. Statistical analyses were conducted to investigate the factors that contributed to payment differences. RESULTS: Among the 347 highest-compensated orthopaedic surgeons, only 1 woman (0.29%) was identified. Orthopaedic surgeons in the subspecialties of spine (32.9%), adult reconstruction (27.9%), and sports medicine (14.5%) made up a majority of the 25 highest earners. A larger proportion of the physicians in this study worked in private practice (57.6%) compared with an academic setting (42.4%). Orthopaedic surgeons who subspecialize in sports medicine had significantly higher total mean payment amounts when compared with all other specialties. The primary method of compensation was found to be through licensing or royalty payments. CONCLUSIONS: The large majority of orthopaedic surgeons who are highly compensated from industry are men. Among these, the greatest number specialize in the spine, while sports medicine surgeons receive significantly higher total mean payment amounts. Additional studies are warranted to evaluate the disparities between men and women and encourage policies to promote gender equality.