Search

Ergonomics in relation to anaesthesia is the scientific study of the interaction between anaesthetists and their workspace environment in order to promote safety, performance and well-being. The foundation for avoiding pain or discomfort at work is to adopt and maintain a good posture, whether sitting or standing. Anaesthetists should aim to keep their posture as natural and neutral as possible. The successful practice of anaesthesia relies on optimisation of ergonomics and lack of attention to detail in this area is associated with impaired performance. The anaesthetic team should wear comfortable clothing, including appropriately-sized personal protective equipment where necessary. Temperature, humidity and light should be adequate at all times. The team should comply with infection prevention and control guidelines and monitoring as recommended by the Association of Anaesthetists. Any equipment or machinery that is mobile should be positioned where it is easy to view or reach without having to change the body or head position significantly when interacting with it. Patients who are supine should, whenever possible, be raised upwards to limit the need to lean towards them. Any item required during a procedure should be positioned on trays or trolleys that are close to the dominant hand. Pregnancy affects the requirements for standing, manually handling, applying force when operating equipment or moving machines and the period over which the individual might have to work without a break. Employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate disability in the workplace. Any member of staff with a physical impairment needs to be accommodated and this includes making provision for a wheelchair user who needs to enter the operating theatre and perform their work.

This guideline updates and replaces the 5th edition of the Standards of Monitoring published in 2015. The aim of this document is to provide guidance on the minimum standards for monitoring of any patient undergoing anaesthesia or sedation under the care of an anaesthetist. The recommendations are primarily aimed at anaesthetists practising in the UK and Ireland, but it is recognised that these guidelines may also be of use in other areas of the world. Minimum standards for monitoring patients during anaesthesia and in the recovery phase are included. There is also guidance on monitoring patients undergoing sedation and during transfer. There are new sections specifically discussing capnography, sedation and regional anaesthesia. In addition, the indications for processed electroencephalogram and neuromuscular monitoring have been updated.

Ultrasound-guided fascial plane blocks of the chest wall are increasingly popular alternatives to established techniques such as thoracic epidural or paravertebral blockade, as they are simple to perform and have an appealing safety profile. Many different techniques have been described, which can be broadly categorised into anteromedial, anterolateral and posterior chest wall blocks. Understanding the relevant clinical anatomy is critical not only for block performance, but also to match block techniques appropriately with surgical procedures. The sensory innervation of tissues deep to the skin (e.g. muscles, ligaments and bone) can be overlooked, but is often a significant source of pain. The primary mechanism of action for these blocks is a conduction blockade of sensory afferents travelling in the targeted fascial planes, as well as of peripheral nociceptors in the surrounding tissues. A systemic action of absorbed local anaesthetic is plausible but unlikely to be a major contributor. The current evidence for their clinical applications indicates that certain chest wall techniques provide significant benefit in breast and thoracic surgery, similar to that provided by thoracic paravertebral blockade. Their role in trauma and cardiac surgery is evolving and holds great potential. Further avenues of research into these versatile techniques include: optimal local anaesthetic dosing strategies; high-quality randomised controlled trials focusing on patient-centred outcomes beyond acute pain; and comparative studies to determine which of the myriad blocks currently on offer should be core competencies in anaesthetic practice.

The posterior suprascapular nerve block has been proposed as an analgesic alternative for shoulder surgery based on the publication of several comparisons with interscalene block that failed to detect differences in analgesic outcomes. However, quantification of the absolute treatment effect of suprascapular nerve block on its own, in comparison with no block (control), to corroborate the aforementioned conclusions has been lacking. This study examines the absolute analgesic efficacy of suprascapular nerve block compared with control for shoulder surgery. We systematically sought electronic databases for studies comparing suprascapular nerve block with control. The primary outcomes included postoperative 24-h cumulative oral morphine consumption and the difference in area under the curve for 24-h pooled pain scores. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of opioid-related side-effects (postoperative nausea and vomiting) and patient satisfaction. Data were pooled using random-effects modelling. Ten studies (700 patients) were analysed; all studies examined landmark-guided posterior suprascapular nerve block performed in the suprascapular fossa. Suprascapular nerve block was statistically but not clinically superior to control for postoperative 24-h cumulative oral morphine consumption, with a weighted mean difference (99%CI) of 11.41 mg (-21.28 to -1.54; p = 0.003). Suprascapular nerve block was also statistically but not clinically superior to control for area under the curve of pain scores, with a mean difference of 1.01 cm.h. Nonetheless, suprascapular nerve block reduced the odds of postoperative nausea and vomiting and improved patient satisfaction. This review suggests that the landmark-guided posterior suprascapular nerve block does not provide clinically important analgesic benefits for shoulder surgery. Investigation of other interscalene block alternatives is warranted.

Avoidance of general anaesthesia for breast surgery may be because of clinical reasons or patient choice. There is emerging evidence that the use of regional anaesthesia and the avoidance of volatile anaesthetics and opioid analgesia may have beneficial effects on oncological outcomes. We conducted a prospective observational case series of 16 breast cancer surgeries performed under thoracic paravertebral plus pectoral nerve block with propofol sedation to demonstrate feasibility of technique, patient acceptability and surgeon satisfaction. Fifteen out of 16 cases were successfully completed under sedation and regional anaesthesia, with one conversion to general anaesthesia. Eleven out of 16 cases required low-dose intra-operative opioid analgesia. Out of the 15 surgical procedures completed under regional anaesthesia with sedation, all patients experienced either no or minimal intra-operative pain, and all would choose this anaesthetic technique again. Surgeon-reported operating conditions were 'indistinguishable from general anaesthesia' in most cases, and surgeons were 'extremely satisfied' or 'satisfied' with the technique after every procedure. Combined thoracic paravertebral plus pectoral nerve block with intra-operative sedation is a feasible technique for breast surgery.

Current descriptions of thoracic paravertebral block techniques require the needle tip to be anterior to the superior costotransverse ligament. We hypothesised that an injection point midway between the posterior border of the transverse process and the pleura would result in spread to the paravertebral space. We completed bilateral injections of 5 ml methylene blue 0.2% midway between the posterior border of the transverse process and the pleura at T2, T4, T6, T8 and T10 in three unembalmed cadavers. The presence of methylene blue dye at the nerve root in the paravertebral space, the corresponding intercostal nerve and sympathetic chain at the level of injection, and at additional levels, was examined. We identified the superior costotransverse ligament, pleural displacement and spread to the erector spinae plane. We describe two case reports using this technique in patients. Our cadaver results and clinical cases demonstrate that, with the exception of cadaver 1, an injection point midway between the posterior border of the transverse process and pleura consistently achieved spread of dye at least to the paravertebral space at the level of injection, and frequently to adjacent levels. This may be a plausible explanation for the landmark technique's inability to reliably achieve a multilevel block. We describe a new ultrasound-guided technique for a single level paravertebral block.