Search

To determine the preferences and attitudes of members of regional anesthesia societies during the COVID-19 pandemic.We distributed an electronic survey to members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Regional Anaesthesia-UK, and the European Society of Regional AnaesthesiaPain Therapy. A questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was developed by a panel of experienced regional anesthesiologists and distributed by email to the participants. The survey covered the following domains: participant information, practice settings, preference for the type of anesthetic technique, the use of personal protective equipment, and oxygen therapy.The survey was completed by 729 participants from 73 different countries, with a response rate of 20.1% (729/3,630) for the number of emails opened and 8.5% (729/8,572) for the number of emails sent. Most respondents (87.7%) identified as anesthesia staff (faculty or consultant) and practiced obstetric and non-obstetric anesthesia (55.3%). The practice of regional anesthesia either expanded or remained the same, with only 2% of respondents decreasing their use compared with the pre-pandemic period. The top reasons for an increase in the use of regional anesthesia was to reduce the need for an aerosol-generating medical procedure and to reduce the risk of possible complications to patients. The most common reason for decreased use of regional anesthesia was the risk of urgent conversion to general anesthesia. Approximately 70% of the responders used airborne precautions when providing care to a patient under regional anesthesia. The most common oxygen delivery method was nasal prongs (cannula) with a surgical mask layered over it (61%).Given the perceived benefits of regional over general anesthesia, approximately half of the members of three regional anesthesia societies seem to have expanded their use of regional anesthesia techniques during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Déterminer les préférences et les attitudes des membres des sociétés d’anesthésie régionale pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons distribué un sondage électronique aux membres de l’American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, de Regional Anesthesia-UK et de l’European Society of Regional AnaesthesiaPain Therapy. Un questionnaire composé de 19 questions a été élaboré par un panel d’anesthésiologistes régionaux d’expérience et distribué par courriel aux participants. Le sondage couvrait les domaines suivants : les renseignements sur les participants, les contextes de pratique, leur préférence quant au type de technique d’anesthésie, l’utilisation d’équipement de protection individuelle et l’oxygénothérapie RéSULTATS: Le sondage a été complété par 729 participants provenant de 73 pays différents, avec un taux de réponse de 20,1 % (729/3630) pour le nombre de courriels ouverts et de 8,5 % (729/8572) pour le nombre de courriels envoyés. La plupart des répondants (87,7 %) se sont identifiés comme anesthésiologistes (académique ou consultant) et pratiquaient l’anesthésie obstétricale et non obstétricale (55,3 %). Leur pratique de l’anesthésie régionale s’est étendue ou est demeurée inchangée, et seulement 2 % des répondants ont indiqué avoir diminué leur utilisation de cette pratique par rapport à la période pré-pandémique. Les principales raisons d’une augmentation de l’utilisation de l’anesthésie régionale étaient de réduire la nécessité d’une intervention médicale générant des aérosols et de réduire le risque de complications potentielles pour les patients. La raison la plus courante de diminution du recours à l’anesthésie régionale était le risque de conversion urgente à une anesthésie générale. Environ 70 % des intervenants ont utilisé des précautions en matière de propagation des aérosols lorsqu’ils procuraient des soins à un patient sous anesthésie régionale. La méthode d’administration d’oxygène la plus fréquemment utilisée était les canules nasales avec un masque chirurgical superposé (61 %). CONCLUSION: Compte tenu des avantages perçus de l’anesthésie régionale par rapport à l’anesthésie générale, environ la moitié des membres de trois sociétés d’anesthésie régionale semblent avoir élargi leur utilisation des techniques d’anesthésie régionale pendant la vague initiale de la pandémie de COVID-19.

Background and objectivesWhile there are several published recommendations and guidelines for trainees undertaking subspecialty Fellowships in regional anesthesia, a similar document describing a core regional anesthesia curriculum for non-fellowship trainees is less well defined. We aimed to produce an international consensus for the training and teaching of regional anesthesia that is applicable for the majority of worldwide anesthesiologists.MethodsThis anonymous, electronic Delphi study was conducted over two rounds and distributed to current and immediate past (within 5 years) directors of regional anesthesia training worldwide. The steering committee formulated an initial list of items covering nerve block techniques, learning objectives and skills assessment and volume of practice, relevant to a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Participants scored these items in order of importance using a 10-point Likert scale, with free-text feedback. Strong consensus items were defined as highest importance (score ≥8) by ≥70% of all participants.Results469 participants/586 invitations (80.0% response) scored in round 1, and 402/469 participants (85.7% response) scored in round 2. Participants represented 66 countries. Strong consensus was reached for 8 core peripheral and neuraxial blocks and 17 items describing learning objectives and skills assessment. Volume of practice for peripheral blocks was uniformly 16–20 blocks per anatomical region, while ≥50 neuraxial blocks were considered minimum.ConclusionsThis international consensus study provides specific information for designing a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Implementation of a standardized curriculum has benefits for patient care through improving quality of training and quality of nerve blocks.

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.

BackgroundThere 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsSixty 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.ConclusionsHarmonization 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.

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.

This article aims to review the thoracic paravertebral block by discussing the relevant anatomy, and landmark and ultrasound-guided techniques. We will compare analgesic efficacy to established neuraxial techniques as well as discuss the complications. The quality of analgesia is comparable and non-inferior to epidural analgesia, especially for surgery involving a thoracotomy. The evidence regarding its use in abdominal surgery is not clear. There are long-term analgesic benefits for thoracic paravertebral blocks in breast surgery and it might potentially play a role in modulating cancer recurrence. Furthermore, latest research suggests an efficacious block can be achieved with a less invasive approach to the paravertebral space. The paravertebral block can achieve analgesia comparable to thoracic epidural, the use of ultrasound improves block success, and the complication rates are low. Novel techniques are emerging which might change the approach to the block in the future.

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.

Purpose: Regional anesthesia techniques may improve patient recovery beyond treating postoperative pain alone and may facilitate patients in their return to functional, psychological as well as emotional baselines. We hypothesized that the quality of recovery (QoR) experienced by patients following breast surgery was associated with the type of anesthesia received as well as the use of a regional anesthesia technique during surgery. Methods: We performed a single-center prospective, observational cohort study of patients undergoing elective breast procedures (both cancer and non-cancer surgery). Results: One hundred patients completed baseline QoR-15 questionnaires prior to surgery, of which 96 also completed QoR-15 questionnaires on postoperative day 1. The median (IQR) QoR-15 score at baseline was 133 (124-141), decreasing to 121 (106.75-136.25) on postoperative day 1. In multivariable linear regression analysis, paravertebral blocks (PVB) were associated with a 16.7 point higher overall QoR-15 score on postoperative day 1 compared to no block (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 7.7-25.8, p

To the Editor We congratulate Hussain et al [1][1] on their thorough meta-analysis of the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in breast cancer surgery. They found statistically significant reductions in postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores at 0, 6, 12, and 24 hours by mean

Study objective Analysis of emergency cases performed during initial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the proportion completed under regional anesthesia (RA). Design Cohort study comparing surgical caseload during initial seven-week COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Comparison was made with pre-COVID-19 caseload over the corresponding seven-week timeframe in 2019. Setting The setting of the study was emergency surgery theaters at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Patients All patients requiring emergency surgery over the defined study period were reviewed with the exception of obstetric and pediatric populations. Interventions Surgical caseload for 2020 and 2019 cohorts established using the Galaxy IT system used to log all operations. All relevant anesthetic charts for the 2020 cohort were subsequently reviewed to ascertain perioperative use of RA. Measurements The type of block, mode of approach, experience of the operator, personal protective equipment (PPE) worn, block complications, type of sedation and complications were entered into database. Main results A total of 338 emergency surgical cases were performed during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, compared to 603 cases over the corresponding period in 2019. This showed a 44% decrease in emergency surgical workload. There was a marked disparity in reduction of surgical caseload by surgical subspecialty. Trauma (137 vs 66 cases), a 52% decrease, and general surgery (193 vs 64 cases), a 66% decrease, were the most pronounced, and explanations for this are explored. RA was performed in 34% (26% as primary technique) of cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of RA as the primary anesthesia technique was noticeably higher than previous UK data (11%), and was prominent in specialties such as general surgery, gynecology and urology, not traditionally completed under RA. Conclusions Surgical RA (and general anesthesia avoidance) has a significant role in the future to ensure high-quality perioperative care for patients whilst minimizing exposure to staff and utilization of scarce resources (PPE).

Within the regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RAAPM) Twitter community, the two common hashtags are #regionalanesthesia and #regionalanaesthesia.[1][1] Hashtags (words/phrases following a “#” symbol) identify themed tweets. Before COVID-19, a common RAAPM topic was opioids, and

Block rooms allow parallel processing of surgical patients with the purported benefits of improving resource utilization and patient outcomes. There is disparity in the literature supporting these suppositions. We aimed to synthesize the evidence base for parallel processing by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was undertaken of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the National Health Service (NHS) National Institute for Health Research Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, and Google Scholar for terms relating to regional anesthesia and block rooms. The primary outcome was anesthesia-controlled time (ACT; time from entry of the patient into the operating room (OR) until the start of surgical prep plus surgical closure to exit of patient from the OR). Secondary outcomes of interest included other resource-utilization parameters such as turnover time (TOT; time between the exit of one patient from the OR and the entry of another), time spent in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), OR throughput, and clinical outcomes such as pain scores, nausea and vomiting, and patient satisfaction. Fifteen studies were included involving 8888 patients, of which 3364 received care using a parallel processing model. Parallel processing reduced ACT by a mean difference (95% CI) of 10.4 min (16.3 to 4.5; p

To the Editor, Since its original description in 2016,1 the ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane (ESP) block, a regional anaesthesia technique, has become increasingly popular and the potential clinical applications have been increasing.2 A popular indication is analgesia for rib fracture management. Although randomised controlled trial (RCT) -level evidence for the ESP block is lacking in rib fractures, a recent retrospective cohort study3 has shown increased incentive spirometry values and reduced pain scores in the first 24 hours after implementation of the ESP block compared with before block administration. Alternative techniques, such as thoracic epidurals and paravertebral blockade, have greater potential for complications and steeper learning curves. The serratus anterior plane block’s efficacy has been questioned in patients with posterior rib fractures, with potential technical challenges if surgical emphysema or chest drains are present.3 This makes the ESP block an attractive proposition in management of these challenging patients. At our institution, a survey of senior anaesthetic trainees highlighted the need for training in ESP blockade as a tool in their armamentarium for rib fracture analgesia when a thoracic epidural was not feasible or practical. …

Local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is a life-threatening adverse event that may occur after the administration of local anesthetic drugs through a variety of routes. Increasing use of local anesthetic techniques in various healthcare settings makes contemporary understanding of LAST highly relevant. Recent data have demonstrated that the underlying mechanisms of LAST are multifactorial, with diverse cellular effects in the central nervous system and cardiovascular system. Although neurological presentation is most common, LAST often presents atypically, and one-fifth of the reported cases present with isolated cardiovascular disturbance. There are several risk factors that are associated with the drug used and the administration technique. LAST can be mitigated by targeting the modifiable risk factors, including the use of ultrasound for regional anesthetic techniques and restricting drug dosage. There have been significant developments in our understanding of LAST treatment. Key advances include early administration of lipid emulsion therapy, prompt seizure management, and careful selection of cardiovascular supportive pharmacotherapy. Cognizance of the mechanisms, risk factors, prevention, and therapy of LAST is vital to any practitioner using local anesthetic drugs in their clinical practice.

Ultrasound-guided interfascial plane blocks are a recent development in modern regional anesthesia research and practice and represent a new route of transmission for local anesthetic to various anatomic locations, but much more research is warranted. Before becoming overtaken with enthusiasm for these new techniques, a deeper understanding of fascial tissue anatomy and structure, as well as precise targets for needle placement, is required. Many factors may influence the ultimate spread and quality of resulting interfascial plane blocks, and these must be understood in order to best integrate these techniques into contemporary perioperative pain management protocols.

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.

Abdominal wall blocks rely on the spread of local anesthetic within musculofascial planes to anesthetize multiple small nerves or plexuses, rather than targeting specific nerve structures. Ultrasonography is primarily responsible for the widespread adoption of techniques including transversus abdominis plane and rectus sheath blocks, as well as the introduction of novel techniques such as quadratus lumborum and transversalis fascia blocks. These blocks are technically straightforward and relatively safe and reduce pain and opioid requirements in many clinical settings. The data supporting these outcomes, however, can be inconsistent because of heterogeneity of study design. The extent of sensory blockade is also somewhat variable, because it depends on the achieved spread of local anesthetic and the anatomical course of the nerves being targeted. The blocks mainly provide somatic analgesia and are best used as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen. This review summarizes the anatomical, sonographic, and technical aspects of the abdominal wall blocks in current use, examining the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of each.

Background and aims There is an ever-increasing number of blocks available within the armamentarium of regional anaesthetists. It is a common for such specialists to be called upon to teach with a particular regional technique. We have aimed to collate some of the free-access, high quality training provisions into an Alexa ‘Regional Skill’ to aid teaching. Methods Alexa is speech-to-text software allowing voice interaction with devices. Amazon have released a rich developer environment alongside Alexa allowing developers to create their own ‘skills’ – programmes that respond to a user’s voice command and return customised pictures and videos. The user can invoke the device by saying ‘Alexa, open Regional Wizard’. This opens a launch screen, allowing users to ask questions relating to regional anaesthesia, such as how to perform a particular block, or the anatomy of a particular body area. This skill was coded through an Amazon Web Service (AWS) developer account in JavaScript Object Notation and Node.js runtime environment which handles the request all within the AWS developer environment. Results We have developed an Alexa-enabled regional teaching device for use with an Amazon Echo Show device, which could be used by clinicians to help teach regional blocks. The skill has a number of supported requests including video footage, examples including serratus plane, adductor canal and supraclavicular blocks. Schematic anatomical diagrams are also supported. Conclusions We have developed what we believe to be the world’s first medical Alexa regional training device, which could be utilised within a theatre environment to aid the delivery of regional anaesthesia techniques.

Background Regional anaesthesia for upper limb surgery is routinely performed with brachial plexus blocks. A retroclavicular brachial plexus block has recently been described, but has not been adequately compared with another approach. This randomised controlled single-blinded trial tested the hypothesis that the retroclavicular approach, when compared with the supraclavicular approach, would increase the success rate. Methods One hundred and twenty ASA physical status 1–3 patients undergoing distal upper limb surgery were randomised to receive an ultrasound-guided retroclavicular or supraclavicular brachial plexus block with 30 mL of a 1:1 mixture of mepivacaine 1% and ropivacaine 0.5%, using a single-injection technique without needle tip repositioning. The primary outcome was block success rate 30 min after local anaesthetic injection, defined as a composite score of 14 of 16 points, inclusive of sensory and motor components. Secondary outcomes included needling time, time to first opioid request, oxycodone consumption, and pain scores (numeric rating scale, 0–10) at 24 h postoperatively. Results Success rates were 98.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 90.8%, 99.9%] and 98.3% [95% CI: 90.9%, 99.9%] in the supraclavicular and retroclavicular groups, respectively (P=0.99). The mean needling time was reduced in the supraclavicular group [supraclavicular: 5.0 (95% CI: 4.7, 5.4) min; retroclavicular: 6.0 (95% CI: 5.4, 6.6) min; P=0.006]. The mean time to first opioid request was similar between groups [supraclavicular: 439 (95% CI: 399, 479) min; retroclavicular: 447 (95% CI: 397, 498) min; P=0.19] as were oxycodone consumption [supraclavicular: 10.0 (95% CI: 6.5, 13.5 mg; retroclavicular: 7.9 (95% CI: 4.8, 11.0) mg; P=0.80] and pain scores at 24 h postoperatively [supraclavicular: 1.2 (95% CI: 2.1, 2.7); retroclavicular: 1.5 (95% CI: 1.6, 2.4); P=0.09]. Conclusions Ultrasound-guided retroclavicular and supraclavicular brachial plexus blocks share identical success rates, while providing similar pain relief. Reduced needling time in the supraclavicular approach is not clinically relevant. Clinical trial registration NCT02641613.

In early-stage breast cancer, the primary treatment option for most women is breast-conserving surgery (BCS). There is a clear need for more accurate techniques to assess resection margins intraoperatively, because on average 20% of patients require further surgery to achieve clear margins. Cerenkov luminescence imaging (CLI) combines optical and molecular imaging by detecting light emitted by 18F-FDG. Its high-resolution and small size imaging equipment make CLI a promising technology for intraoperative margin assessment. A first-in-human study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of 18F-FDG CLI for intraoperative assessment of tumor margins in BCS. Methods: Twenty-two patients with invasive breast cancer received 18F-FDG (5 MBq/kg) 45-60 min before surgery. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed using an increased 99mTc-nanocolloid activity of 150 MBq to facilitate nodal detection against the g-probe background signal (cross-talk) from 18F-FDG. The cross-talk and 99mTc dose required was evaluated in 2 lead-in studies. Immediately after excision, specimens were imaged intraoperatively in an investigational CLI system. The first 10 patients were used to optimize the imaging protocol; the remaining 12 patients were included in the analysis dataset. Cerenkov luminescence images from incised BCS specimens were analyzed postoperatively by 2 surgeons blinded to the histopathology results, and mean radiance and margin distance were measured. The agreement between margin distance on CLI and histopathology was assessed. Radiation doses to staff were measured. Results: Ten of the 12 patients had an elevated tumor radiance on CLI. Mean radiance and tumor-to-background ratio were 560 6 160 photons/s/cm2/sr and 2.41 6 0.54, respectively. All 15 assessable margins were clear on CLI and histopathology. The agreement in margin distance and interrater agreement was good (k 5 0.81 and 0.912, respectively). Sentinel lymph nodes were successfully detected in all patients. The radiation dose to staff was low; surgeons received a mean dose of 34 6 15 mSv per procedure. Conclusion: Intraoperative 18F-FDG CLI is a promising, low-risk technique for intraoperative assessment of tumor margins in BCS. A randomized controlled trial will evaluate the impact of this technique on reexcision rates.

Regional anaesthesia techniques are an important adjunct to perioperative care of breast surgery patients. This chapter focuses on the practical application, evidence base and advantages of peripheral nerve block regional anaesthesia in the anaesthetic management of patients undergoing breast surgery. Functional anatomy and fascial plane blocks are discussed alongside paravertebral and paraspinal techniques. Guidance on the performance the range of ultrasound-guided blocks is provided. The role that regional anaesthesia may have in reducing the risk of breast cancer recurrence following mastectomy surgery is explored.

Purpose of review As the evidence supporting the notion that regional anesthesia improves patient outcomes grows, utilization of regional anesthesia techniques has similarly increased. Best care should not be restricted by the background of care providers, however, the evidence replicating benefits of regional anesthesia when it is delivered by nonanesthesiologists is unclear. In this review, the provision of regional anesthesia by nonanesthesiologists is discussed so that readers can come to their own conclusions. Recent findings Regional anesthesia procedures are performed by nonanesthesiology physicians such as emergency physicians, critical care specialists, and surgeons. Patients benefit from the provision of regional anesthesia by these groups, but inconsistencies exist in training, service provision, and collaboration between these specialties and anesthesiologists. Nonphysician anesthesia providers also provide regional anesthesia. There are limited data on outcomes or benefits of this nonphysician-provided service, but consideration of team-based care and alternative models of care based upon geographical need is worthwhile. Summary The provision of regional anesthesia requires the accumulation of a suitable knowledge, skills, and behaviors that can be taught. Whilst it may not be appropriate for all techniques to be performed by all individuals, the possession of these competencies with the appropriate training and quality assurance means that more patients may ultimately benefit from the provision of regional anesthesia services.

To the editor, Interfascial plane blocks are emerging anesthetic and analgesic techniques for breast surgery and may be performed in various ways. These blocks are used as an alternative to paravertebral blockade (PVB) since they are considered simpler to perform, do not require repositioning of

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.

Item does not contain fulltext

To the editor, While these letters were in the publication stage, Dr Darcy Price passed away on September 29, 2018. Many of us around the world knew Dr Price as a dedicated physician, inspiring teacher, innovator, friend, and colleague. His passion for our specialty shows in his letter which may

The popliteal sciatic nerve block is a well-established and popular technique of peripheral nerve blockade in the lower limb. It is a versatile block in that it may be performed in varying patient positions (prone, lateral, or supine) and using different approaches (lateral to medial, posterior to anterior). The landmark-guided technique uses neurostimulation to locate the nerves and is both effective and easy to perform. The advent of ultrasound imaging though has both revolutionized our approach to the popliteal sciatic nerve block [1] and enhanced our understanding of neural anatomy. In particular, the concept of a paraneural sheath in this region is now well accepted [2, 3] and has changed the way we think about “intraneural” and “extraneural” injections [4].