Search

Background: Axillary brachial plexus block under neurostimulation is commonly used for upper limb surgery, but it is sometimes recognized as an uncomfortable technique, with most patients identifying electrical stimulation as an unpleasant moment. Ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia, which becomes an increasingly popular technique, does not require electrical stimulation and then should theoretically improve axillary block placement comfort. The aim of this study was to compare the comfort of the patients during axillary block placement with neurostimulation and ultrasound guidance using either the out-of-plane or the in-plane approach. Methods: Consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in three equal groups: neurostimulation, ultrasound out-of-plane and ultrasound in-plane approaches. A score was used to measure the comfort of the patients during axillary blocks placement. This score included three criteria: maximum pain intensity perceived during block placement measured using a visual analogue scale (0, no pain and 100, maximal or worse imaginable pain), the number of unpleasant events declared by the patients and the satisfaction of the patient (unsatisfied, acceptable, satisfied, very satisfied). The comfort score was calculated as the sum of each criterion, which was attributed a value of 0 or 1: visual analogue scale (30/100, 0), number of unpleasant events (0, 1; >or=1, 0) and satisfaction (satisfied or very satisfied, 1; acceptable or unsatisfied, 0). Procedures of axillary blocks placement resulting in a comfort score of 3 and 2 were arbitrary considered as very comfortable and comfortable, respectively. Success rate of axillary blocks, time to perform block and complications related to procedures were noted. Results: One hundred and twenty patients were included. In the ultrasound out-of-plane group, 55% (22/40) and 25% (10/40) of the procedures were very comfortable and comfortable as compared with 32% (13/40, P < 0.05) and 20% (8/40, P < 0.01) in the ultrasound in-plane group and 25% (10/40, P < 0.01) and 8% (3/40, P < 0.01) in the neurostimulation group, respectively. Duration of axillary placement was significantly smaller in the ultrasound out-of-plane group as compared with that of in-plane approaches (P < 0.05) and neurostimulation (P < 0.01). Conclusion: The present study showed that the ultrasound approaches were less painful and more comfortable than neurostimulation to place axillary blocks. We also showed that, although pain intensity resulting from blocks placement was similar with the ultrasound approaches, very comfortable procedures were more frequent with the out-of-plane than with the in-plane approach. [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.)

WALANT (Wide Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet) has been widely implemented in hand surgery. We conducted a systematic review from 1979 to 2022, led by a team of anesthesiologist. Only randomized studies comparing WALANT to other types of regional anesthesia were included. The outcomes studied were pain, duration of the procedure, intraoperative bleeding, complications, and patient satisfaction. Twelve articles were included in the analysis. We found a reduction of 2.77 on the VAS (95% CI -3.79; -1.75, I² 93%) for intraoperative pain in the WALANT group. There was no significant difference (MD 0.79, 95% CI 95% -0.11; 1.69, I² 73%) for duration of surgery. Patient satisfaction was consistently high in the WALANT group. Intraoperative bleeding was minimal and not clinically relevant. Compared to other types of regional anesthesia in hand surgery, the WALANT technique decreases pain for the patients without increasing the length of surgery., (Copyright © 2024 SFCM. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)