Search

Pain resulting from lower leg injuries and consequent surgery can be severe. There is a range of opinion on the use of regional analgesia and its capacity to obscure the symptoms and signs of acute compartment syndrome. We offer a multi-professional, consensus opinion based on an objective review of case reports and case series. The available literature suggested that the use of neuraxial or peripheral regional techniques that result in dense blocks of long duration that significantly exceed the duration of surgery should be avoided. The literature review also suggested that single-shot or continuous peripheral nerve blocks using lower concentrations of local anaesthetic drugs without adjuncts are not associated with delays in diagnosis provided post-injury and postoperative surveillance is appropriate and effective. Post-injury and postoperative ward observations and surveillance should be able to identify the signs and symptoms of acute compartment syndrome. These observations should be made at set frequencies by healthcare staff trained in the pathology and recognition of acute compartment syndrome. The use of objective scoring charts is recommended by the Working Party. Where possible, patients at risk of acute compartment syndrome should be given a full explanation of the choice of analgesic techniques and should provide verbal consent to their chosen technique, which should be documented. Although the patient has the right to refuse any form of treatment, such as the analgesic technique offered or the surgical procedure proposed, neither the surgeon nor the anaesthetist has the right to veto a treatment recommended by the other.

Shared decision-making is central to the pre-operative consent process and accurate communication of risk is dependent on a clear understanding of numerical information by both the patient and clinician. The risk of an adverse event or complication is often described using verbal probability expressions but how these are interpreted by clinicians and patients in the pre-operative setting has not been studied. We asked patients and clinicians to assign a numerical translation (as a percentage) for seven verbal probability expressions in relation to the probability of a major peri-operative complication occurring. In total, data from 290 patients and 57 clinicians were analysed. There was a wide range in percentages assigned by patients to all verbal probability expressions. Patients assigned a wider range of percentage values to each of the verbal probability expressions and these were all significantly higher than those assigned by clinicians: median (IQR [range]) negligible risk 5% (1-15 [0-100]) vs. 0% (0-0 [0-5]); minimal risk 5% (2-10) [0-100]) vs. 1% (0-1 [0-10]); low risk 10% (3-10 [0-100]) vs. 1% (0-2) [0-10]); standard risk 20% (10-40) [0-100]) vs. 1% (1-5) [0-30]); moderate risk 33% (20-50) [0-100]) vs. 5% (3-10) [0-80]); high risk 70% (30-90 [0-100]) vs. 15% (10-40) [1-75]); and very high risk 90% (50-95 [0-100]) vs. 40% (20-50 [5-100]), respectively (p < 0.005 for all comparisons). There is considerable variation in the numerical translation of verbal probability expressions by both patients and clinicians. This suggests that verbal probability expressions should not be used in isolation as part of doctor-patient discussions regarding peri-operative risk.

Background Hip fracture is a condition with high mortality and morbidity in elderly frail patients. Intraoperative fluid optimization may be associated with benefit in this population. We investigated whether intraoperative fluid management using pulse-contour analysis cardiac monitoring, compared with standard care in patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia, would provide benefits in terms of reduced time until medically fit for discharge and postoperative complications. Methods Patients undergoing surgical repair of fractured neck of femur, aged >60 yr, receiving spinal anaesthesia were enrolled in this single-centre, blinded, randomized, parallel group trial. Patients were allocated to either anaesthetist-directed fluid therapy or a pulse-contour-guided fluid optimization strategy using colloid (Gelofusine) boluses to optimize stroke volume. The primary outcome was time until medically fit for discharge. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, mobility, and mortality. We updated a systematic review to include relevant trials to 2014. Results We recruited 130 patients. Time until medically fit for discharge was similar in both groups, mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] 12.2 (11.1–13.5) vs 13.1 (11.9–14.5) days (P=0.31), as was total length of stay 14.2 (12.9–15.8) vs 15.3 (13.8–17.2) days (P=0.32). There were no significant differences in complications, function, or mortality. An updated meta-analysis (four studies, 355 patients) found non-significant reduction in early mortality [relative risk 0.66 (0.24–1.79)] and in-hospital complications [relative risk 0.80 (0.61–1.05)]. Conclusions Goal-directed fluid therapy during hip fracture repair under spinal anaesthesia does not result in a significant reduction in length of stay or postoperative complications. There is insufficient evidence to either support or discount its routine use. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN88284896.

We performed a study of 85 consenting anaesthetists to assess their ability to locate the right internal jugular vein using a landmark technique. Initially, a questionnaire was completed ascertaining previous user experience. An ultrasound probe, using the midpoint as an 'imaginary needle', was placed on the neck of a healthy volunteer (with previously confirmed normal anatomy) and the image recorded. Both anaesthetist and volunteer were blinded to the screen until the image was stored. Anaesthetists were grouped into those in training before 2002 (Pre-2002, n = 58), when National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines recommending ultrasound guidance were published, and those training after this time point (Post-2002, n = 27). The success rate for identifying the internal jugular vein using the landmark technique was 36/58 (62%) in the Pre-2002 group and 6/27 (22%) in the Post-2002 group (p0.001). Three participants in each group would have hit the carotid artery (5% Pre-2002 and 11% Post-2002 respectively; p = 0.2). The advent of routine use of ultrasound has resulted in a cohort of anaesthetists who are unable to use a landmark technique effectively or safely. This has significant training implications.