Search

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EA: grants from Swiss Academy for Anesthesia Research, Bbraun, Swiss National Science Foundation. Honoraria from Bbraun and Sintetica. JG: consulting fees from Pacira Biosciences and Pajunk Medical. AP: honoraria from FuijiFilm Sonosite. MW: advisory Board for Sintetica, Honoraria from Wisonic and Medovate. SA: Advisory Panel for DATAR innovations. JA: moderator of the Working Group Regional Anaesthesia Switzerland, Honoraria from Medtronic and Sintetica. AMRA: honoraria form AllerganSébastien Bloc—Consulting fees from BBraun—GE Medical Systems—Pajunk—Pfizer SAS. JB: Consulting fees from Intelligent Ultrasound. BC: jonoraria from Bbraun and Rivanna, Consulting from Stryker and Flat Medical, Research funding from Pacira, Share Options from Flat Medical. AC: speaking honoraria from GE Healthcare, royalties from textbook Oxford University Press. SC: consulting fees from MSD, Bbraun Medical, Wisonic, research grants from BARA (Belgian association of Regional anesthesia), ESRA and BeSARP (Belgian anesthesia society) HE-Consulting/Advisory Board Neuronoff, SPR, GateScience, NeuronoffBenjamin Fox—Speaking fees from Medovate and Sintetica. SG: consulting and speaking fees from MSD Switzerland. PH: royalties from Bestek Products. NH: Honoraria from Butterfly Network. RMGH- Honoraria from GE Healthcare. MH: consulting fees from Pacira Biosciences, Honoraria from Parcira Biosciences and Pajunk Medical. BMI: research funding to institution from SPR Therapeutics, Infutronix, Epimed International. AM: Consultant fees from Intelligent Ultrasound. CM: consultant fees from Masimo Corporation. SGM: Owner SGM Consulting, Partner Parvizi Surgical Innovations, Patent for Multicatheter infusion system. AN: Research support from SPR Therapeutics. SLO: Royalties from book Wolters-Kluwer. APawa: Honoraria from GE Healthcare, Consulting fees from Pacira Biosciences. PP: equipment support from Sonosiite Fujifilm Canada. MPS: Medovate speaking but no honoraria paid. SKS- Cofounder of Gate Science (developing a catheter for performing nerve blocks) JS: consulting fees from Sintetica. RT: Consulting fees from Clarius Mobile Health. VU: Associate Editor of the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia and Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine journals. TV: honoraria from CSL Behring, Pajunk., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IC reports being the first author of original description of the MTP block. PH reports being the original describer of several of the blocks considered. AP receives funding from a Merit Award from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Prolonged tourniquet inflation during surgery frequently leads to tourniquet hypertension (TH), which is thought to arise from compression of A-δ fibers leading to sympathetically mediated C fiber activation. In the lower extremity, C fibers and other sympathetic nerve fibers are carried along the femoral artery. We hypothesized that blockade of these fibers at the femoral artery would decrease the incidence of TH., Methods: Thirty American Society of Anesthesia 1-3 patients aged 18-75 undergoing total ankle arthroplasty were randomized to receive 15 mL of injectate (mepivacaine 1.5% or saline placebo) at the anteromedial aspect of the common femoral artery at the level of the inguinal crease under ultrasound guidance. Both groups received preoperative popliteal sciatic and saphenous nerve blocks for analgesia and a standardized general anesthetic. Esmolol was administered if systolic blood pressure rose >30% above baseline. Incidence of TH was the primary outcome., Results: TH was present in 93.3% of sham patients versus 33.3% of block patients. Mean systolic pressure at 120 min and 150 min of tourniquet time was significantly higher in the sham group compared with the block group. Esmolol requirement (95.3+107.6 v 8.0+14.2, p=<0.001) was also significantly higher in the sham group. No differences were noted in pain scores or opioid consumption, and no patient experienced sensory or motor block of the femoral nerve., Discussion: Under these experimental conditions, injection of local anesthetic around the femoral artery reduced the incidence of TH and intraoperative esmolol requirement., Trial Registration Number: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03390426; December 28, 2017)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SAG reports other from SPR Therapeutics, personal fees from B. Braun, outside the submitted work; JG reports grants and personal fees from Pacira Biosciences, grants from Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work; WMB reports personal fees from Pacira Biosciences, outside the submitted work., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine charged an expert panel to examine the evidence basis for ultrasound guidance as a nerve localization tool in the clinical practices of regional anesthesia and interventional pain medicine., Methods: The panel searched, examined, and assessed the literature of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) from the past 20 years. The qualities of studies were graded using the Jadad score. Strength of evidence and recommendations were graded using an accepted rating tool., Results: The panel made specific literature-based assessments concerning the relative advantages and limitations of UGRA relative to traditional nerve localization methods as they pertained to block characteristics and complications. Assessments and recommendations were made for upper and lower extremity, neuraxial, and truncal blocks and include pediatrics and interventional pain medicine., Conclusions: Ultrasound guidance improves block characteristics (particularly performance time and surrogate measures of success) that are often block specific and that may impart an efficiency advantage depending on individual practitioner circumstances. Evidence for UGRA impacting patient safety is currently limited to the demonstration of improvements in the frequency of surrogate events for serious complications.

Background and Objectives: Continuous lumbar plexus infusion of local anesthetic after total knee arthroplasty has been shown to improve analgesia and early recovery as compared with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine. Any benefit of an infusion over a single-injection lumbar plexus block has not been directly shown however., Methods: In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, 32 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups: 0.1% levobupivacaine infusion or saline infusion. Preoperatively, all patients received a lumbar plexus block with 25 mL 0.5% levobupivacaine using a posterior approach with a catheter left in situ, a sciatic nerve block with 15 mL 0.5% levobupivacaine, and a spinal anesthetic. At the end of surgery, 0.1% levobupivacaine or saline was infused into the catheter at 10 mL/h for 48 hours. All patients also received PCA morphine. The primary endpoint was morphine use from the PCA machine. Secondary endpoints included pain scores, day of first postoperative mobilization, and nausea., Results: Patients receiving the levobupivacaine infusion used significantly less morphine than those receiving saline (19 mg [interquartile range (IQR) 8.5-29.5] vs 32 mg [IQR 23.5-53.0], P = .04) and also mobilized earlier postoperatively (day 1 or 2 [levobupivacaine] vs day 2 or 3 [saline], P = .001). Pain scores were similar., Conclusion: Postoperative infusion of local anesthetic around the lumbar plexus reduces morphine requirement and improves early recovery after total knee arthroplasty as compared with a single-injection block.

Objectives: Despite the tremendous growth of peripheral nerve blocks, no standard format exists to document their performance. Our objective was to create a peripheral nerve block form based on key elements of literature evidence and on our own group consensus., Results: We describe the process and results of our multi-institutional effort to construct a standardized peripheral nerve block procedure form., Conclusion: A form was developed to help meet the medical, legal, and billing requirements of documentation consistent with the performance of peripheral nerve block.

Objectives: To describe the onset of phantom leg pain in an amputee with the performance of a lumbar plexus block and the subsequent alleviation after the performance of a sciatic nerve block., Case Report: A 72-year-old American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status III woman presented for left total hip arthroplasty. Her history was significant for a left below the knee amputation. Since the amputation she had suffered from intermittent phantom leg pain. A lumbar plexus block was performed for postoperative pain management. After the lumbar plexus block, the patient experienced severe pain radiating to the left phantom foot. Because of the severity of the phantom pain, a sciatic nerve block was performed. The phantom leg pain resolved within 5 minutes. The intraoperative care under general anesthesia was uneventful. After surgery the patient had continued blockade in both nerve distributions with excellent analgesia. Full recovery of the lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve function was present on the first postoperative day., Conclusion: The temporal relationship between the onset of the phantom leg pain and the lumbar plexus block suggests a causal relationship. In this case, it appears that ongoing peripheral input from the lumbar plexus may have been sufficient for the tonic inhibition of phantom pain in the sciatic distribution. The immediate reactivation of the phantom pain and its subsequent relief suggests dynamic processing of peripheral inputs by central neurons, which apparently is rapid and reversible in some cases of phantom pain.

Background and Objectives: Central nervous system and cardiac toxicity following the administration of local anesthetics is a recognized complication of regional anesthesia. Levobupivacaine, the pure S(-) enantiomer of bupivacaine, was developed to improve the cardiac safety profile of bupivacaine. We describe 2 cases of grand mal seizures following accidental intravascular injection of levobupivacaine., Case Report: Two patients presenting for elective orthopedic surgery of the lower limb underwent blockade of the lumbar plexus via the posterior approach. Immediately after the administration of levobupivacaine 0.5% with epinephrine 2.5 microgram/mL, the patients developed grand mal seizures, despite negative aspiration for blood and no clinical signs of intravenous epinephrine administration. The seizures were successfully treated with sodium thiopental in addition to succinylcholine in 1 patient. Neither patient developed signs of cardiovascular toxicity. Both patients were treated preoperatively with beta-adrenergic antagonist medications, which may have masked the cardiovascular signs of the unintentional intravascular administration of levobupivacaine with epinephrine., Conclusions: Although levobupivacaine may have a safer cardiac toxicity profile than racemic bupivacaine, if adequate amounts of levobupivacaine reach the circulation, it will result in convulsions. Plasma concentrations sufficient to result in central nervous system toxicity did not produce manifestations of cardiac toxicity in these 2 patients.

Background and Objectives: Continuous peripheral nerve block (CPNB) can provide surgical anesthesia, prolonged postoperative analgesia, and acceptable side effects. Despite these advantages, CPNB is not in widespread use. Recently a new CPNB catheter system (Contiplex, B. Braun, Bethlehem, PA) was developed based on an insulated Tuohy needle, which allows for injection of local anesthetic and catheter insertion without disconnection or needle movement. At present, no clinical studies exist describing this system., Methods: Data were prospectively gathered for 1 year from 228 patients in an ambulatory surgery center. All CPNB were performed using the Contiplex system to provide anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. CPNB were performed using 5 upper and lower extremity techniques. Postsurgery local anesthetic was infused and at 24 hours, a rebolus of local anesthetic was performed. The CPNB catheter was removed and patients were examined for loss of sensation. Patients were then discharged., Results: Initial peripheral block was successful in 94% of patients. Failed nerve block requiring general anesthesia occurred in 6%. The catheter was patent and functional in 90% of patients at 24 hours, and 8% of patients required more than 10 mg of intravenous morphine by 24 hours postsurgery. In the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), only 4 patients (1.7%) required treatment for nausea. At 24 hours and 7 days postsurgery, no patient reported a dysesthesia., Conclusions: CPNB using the insulated Tuohy catheter system offered acceptable anesthesia and prolonged pain relief postsurgery. There were few side effects. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001;26:209-214.