Search

Background: The primary aim of this study was to compare the long-term functional outcome of midshaft clavicle fracture fixation for delayed (≥3 month) and non-union (≥6 month) compared to a matched cohort of patients that achieved union with non-operative management. The secondary aim was to assess cost-effectiveness of fixation. Methods: A consecutive series of patients over 10-years were retrospectively reviewed using the QuickDASH, Oxford Shoulder Score and EuroQol five-dimension summary index (EQ-5D). These patients were compared to a matched cohort that achieved union after non-operative management using propensity score matching. Results: Sixty patients (follow-up 79%, n = 60/76) at 4.1 years post-operative (1.1–10.0 years) had a QuickDASH of 16.5 (95% CI 11.6–21.5), Oxford Shoulder Score 41.5 (39.0–44.1) and EQ-5D 0.7621 (0.6822–0.8421). One in five patients were dissatisfied with their final outcome (n = 13/60). Functional outcome was inferior following fixation when compared to patients that united with non-operative management (QuickDASH 16.5 vs. 5.5, p < 0.001 and EQ-5D 0.7621 vs. 0.9073, p = 0.001). However, significant improvements were found when compared to pre-operative scores (QuickDASH p < 0.001 and EQ-5D p < 0.001). The cost per QALY for fixation was £5624.62 for the study cohort. Conclusions: Clavicle fixation for delayed and non-union is a cost-effective intervention but outcomes are worse compared to patients that unite with non-operative management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)