Explore the vast range of titles available.

Needle tip visualization is fundamental to the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA). It can be extremely challenging especially at steep insertion angles. We assessed whether an echogenic needle improved tip visibility during UGRA by anesthesiologists performing their normal in-plane technique. The visibility of the Pajunk Sonoplex (echogenic) and the Pajunk Uniplex (control) needle were compared during 60 nerve blocks (30 femoral, 30 sciatic) in this randomized controlled trial. All ultrasound imaging was recorded for analysis. The anesthesiologist subjectively estimated the percentage time they had visualized the needle tip (5-point scale: 1 [0%-20%], 2 [20%-40%], 3 [40%-60%], 4 [60%-80%], 5 [80%-100%]). The actual time the tip was in view, angle of needle insertion, target depth, and procedure time were subsequently measured objectively by a single investigator. The Sonoplex group had both subjectively and objectively better tip visibility (P = 0.002), despite having larger mean body mass index (29.0 vs 25.0 kg/m2, P = 0.01) and steeper mean insertion angle (31 vs 22 degrees, P = 0.03). Objective percentage tip visibility, during in-plane UGRA, reduced by 12% for every 10-degree increase in insertion angle with the control. Tip visibility with the Sonoplex was independent of insertion angle over the range studied (0-57 degrees, P = 0.95). This finding occurred when nonexpert anesthesiologists performed their standard UGRA technique. A needle that is visible for a greater percentage of time has potential safety and efficacy implications.

AbstractUltrasound-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.

IntroductionOver a decade ago, our study group showed improved outcomes among total hip/knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) patients given neuraxial versus general anesthesia. As the use of neuraxial anesthesia has increased and anesthesia practices evolve, updated analyses are critical to ensure if previously found differences still persist.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included elective THA/TKAs from 2006 to 2021 as recorded in the all-payor Premier Healthcare Database. Multivariable regression models measured the association between anesthesia type (neuraxial, general, combined) and several adverse outcomes (pulmonary embolism, cerebrovascular events, pulmonary compromise, cardiac complications, acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, all infections, acute renal failure, gastrointestinal complications, postoperative mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admissions, and blood transfusions); models were run separately by period (2006–2015 and 2016–2021) and THA/TKA.ResultsWe identified 587,919 and 499,484 THAs for 2006–2015 and 2016–2021, respectively; this was 1,186,483 and 803,324 for TKAs. Among THAs, neuraxial anesthesia use increased from 10.7% in 2006 to 25.7% in 2021; during both time periods, specifically neuraxial versus general anesthesia was associated with lower odds for most adverse outcomes, with sometimes stronger (protective) effect estimates observed for 2016–2021 versus 2006–2015 (eg, acute renal failure OR 0.72 CI 0.65 to 0.80 vs OR 0.56 CI 0.50 to 0.63 and blood transfusion OR 0.91 CI 0.89 to 0.94 vs OR 0.44 CI 0.41 to 0.47, respectively; all p<0.001). Similar patterns existed for TKAs.ConclusionThese findings re-confirm our study group’s decade-old study using more recent data and offer additional evidence toward the sustained benefit of neuraxial anesthesia in major orthopedic surgery.

In 2010, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine's evidence-based medicine assessment of ultrasound (US)-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) analyzed the effect of this nerve localization technology on patient safety. That analysis focused on 4 important regional anesthesia complications: peripheral nerve injury, local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST), hemidiaphragmatic paresis (HDP), and pneumothorax. In the intervening 5 years, further research has allowed us to refine our original conclusions. This update reviews previous findings and critically evaluates new literature published since late 2009 that compares the patient safety attributes of UGRA with those of traditional nerve localization methods. As with the previous version of this exercise, analysis focused on randomized controlled trials that compared UGRA with an alternative neural localization method and case series of more than 500 patients. The Jadad score was used to grade individual study quality, and conclusions were graded as to strength of evidence. Of those randomized controlled trials identified by our search techniques, 28 compared the incidence of postoperative nerve symptoms, 27 assessed LAST parameters, 7 studied HDP, and 9 reported the incidence of pneumothorax. The current analysis strengthens our original conclusions that US guidance has no significant effect on the incidence of postoperative neurologic symptoms and that UGRA reduces the incidence and intensity of HDP but does so in an unpredictable manner. Conversely, emerging evidence supports the effectiveness of US guidance for reducing LAST across its clinical presentation continuum. The predicted frequency of pneumothorax has grown smaller in tandem with increased experience with US-guided supraclavicular block. This evidence-based review summarizes both the power and the limitations of UGRA as a tool for improving patient safety.Since the original 2010 publication of this analysis, evidence has continued to support the concept that ultrasound (US) guidance does not meaningfully affect the incidence of peripheral nerve injury (PNI) associated with regional anesthesia. Similar confirmatory evidence attests to US guidance reducing the incidence and intensity of hemidiaphragmatic paresis (HDP) but not eliminating it. Literature published since late 2009 reports the effective role of US guidance in reducing the incidence of local anesthetic systemic toxicity and allows calculation of a lower predicted frequency of pneumothorax associated with US-guided supraclavicular blocks.

IntroductionWe aimed to determine whether regional anesthesia (RA) has any advantages over general anesthesia (GA) in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in terms of mortality and postoperative complications.MethodsThis population-based retrospective cohort study included data of adults who underwent total knee or hip arthroplasty under RA or GA between 2016 and 2021 from the National Health Insurance Service of South Korea. RA included spinal or epidural anesthesia or a combination of both. Endpoints were 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and postoperative complications. Propensity score (PS) matching was used for statistical analysis.ResultsWe included 517 960 patients (RA, n=380 698; GA, n=137 262) who underwent TJA. After PS matching, 186 590 patients (93 295 in each group) were included in the final analysis. In the logistic regression analyses using the PS-matched cohort, the RA group compared with the GA group showed 31% (OR: 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.80; p<0.001) and 22% (OR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.85; p<0.001) lower 30-day and 90-day mortality rates, respectively. However, the total postoperative complication rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (p=0.105).ConclusionRA compared with GA was associated with improved 30-day and 90-day survival outcomes in patients who underwent TJA. However, the postoperative complication rate did not differ significantly. Therefore, our results should be interpreted with caution, and more well-designed future studies are needed to clarify the most appropriate type of anesthesia for TJA.

IntroductionInfectious complications following regional anesthesia (RA) while rare, can be devastating. The objective of this review was to estimate the risk of infectious complications following central neuraxial blocks (CNB) such as epidural anesthesia (EA), spinal anesthesia (SA) and combined spinal epidural (CSE), and peripheral nerve blocks (PNB).Materials and methodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify reference studies reporting infectious complications in the context of RA subtypes. Both prospective and retrospective studies providing incidence of infectious complications were included for review to provide pooled estimates (with 95% CI). Additionally, we explored incidences specifically associated with spinal anesthesia, incidences of central nervous system (CNS) infections and, the incidences of overall and CNS infections following CNB in obstetric population.ResultsThe pooled estimate of overall infectious complications following all CNB was 9/100 000 (95% CI: 5, 13/100 000). CNS infections following all CNB was estimated to be 2/100 000 (95% CI: 1, 3/100 000) and even rarer following SA (1/100 000 (95% CI: 1, 2/100 000)). Obstetric population had a lower rate of overall (1/100 000 (95% CI: 1, 3/100 000)) and CNS infections (4 per million (95% CI: 0.3, 1/100 000)) following all CNB. For PNB catheters, the reported rate of infectious complications was 1.8% (95% CI: 1.2, 2.5/100).DiscussionOur review suggests that the risk of overall infectious complications following neuraxial anesthesia is very rare and the rate of CNS infections is even rarer. The infectious complications following PNB catheters seems significantly higher compared with CNB. Standardizing nomenclature and better reporting methodologies are needed for the better estimation of the infectious complications.

This two-part review summarizes the current knowledge of physiological mechanisms, pharmacological modalities and controversial issues surrounding preemptive analgesia. Articles from 1966 to present were obtained from the MEDLINE databases. Search terms included analgesia, preemptive; neurotransmitters; pain, postoperative; hyperalgesia; sensitization, central nervous system; pathways, nociception; anesthetic techniques; analgesics, agents. In Part I of this review article, techniques and agents that attenuate or prevent central and peripheral sensitization were reviewed. In Part II, the conditions required for effective preemptive techniques are evaluated. Specifically, preemptive analgesia may be defined as an antinociceptive treatment that prevents establishment of altered central processing of afferent input from sites of injury. The most important conditions for establishment of effective preemptive analgesia are the establishment of an effective level of antinociception before injury, and the continuation of this effective analgesic level well into the post-injury period to prevent central sensitization during the inflammatory phase. Although single-agent therapy may attenuate the central nociceptive processing, multi-modal therapy is more effective, and may be associated with fewer side effects compared with the high-dose, single-agent therapy. The variable patient characteristics and timing of preemptive analgesia in relation to surgical noxious input require individualization of the technique(s) chosen. Multi-modal analgesic techniques appear more effective.

BackgroundA growing body of evidence indicates that the use of regional anesthesia offers advantages over general anesthesia, not only in terms of reducing complications but also regarding resource utilization and patient satisfaction. Because of the paucity of data on the nationwide adoption of regional anesthesia techniques, we aimed to elucidate trends in the use of neuraxial anesthesia (NA) and peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) in orthopedic surgeries.MethodsWe extracted data from N = 959,257 (Premier Perspective database; 2006–2013) total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA, TKA) and assessed NA/PNB use by a 2-year period, stratified by demographics and hospital factors. Cochran-Armitage trend tests assessed significance of trends.ResultsComparing 2006–2007 with 2012–2013, NA utilization decreased slightly from 21.7% to 19.7% for THA patients; this was 24.7% to 21.3% for TKA patients (with the main drop between 2012 and 2013). Conversely, PNB utilization increased from 6.5% to 8.7% for THA patients and 10.3% to 20.4% for TKA patients (all P < 0.001). These general trends did not change when stratified by patient demographics, whereas stratification by hospital factors did show differences: the highest NA utilization was seen in rural, nonteaching, and small hospitals, whereas the highest PNB utilization was seen in large and teaching hospitals.ConclusionsOur findings provide important insight into the dynamics of the adoption of regional anesthetic techniques. Whereas PNB utilization is significantly increasing, overall, NA and PNBs are performed in the minority of cases. With accumulating evidence in favor of regional anesthesia, promoting the use of NA and a further increase in PNB utilization could have far-reaching medical and economic implications.

Regional anesthesia (RA) is commonly used in perioperative settings of developed and well-resourced environments. RA has significant potential benefits when used in resource-limited environments, including disaster, mass casualty, and wartime environments. RA offers benefits over general anesthesia and opioid-based analgesia, including decreased risk of complications, decreased reliance on mechanical ventilation, improved cost efficiency, and others. The decreasing cost of ultrasound matched with its smaller size and portability increases the availability of ultrasound in these environments, making ultrasound-guided RA more feasible. This daring discourse discusses some historical examples of RA in ultralow resource environments, both man-made disasters and natural disasters. Future investigations should increase the usefulness and availability of RA in resource-limited environments.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated a disruptive ability to enhance and transform clinical medicine. While the dexterous nature of anesthesiology work offers some protections from AI clinical assimilation, this technology will ultimately impact the practice and augment the ability to provide an enhanced level of safe and data-driven care. Whether predicting difficulties with airway management, providing perioperative or critical care risk assessments, clinical-decision enhancement, or image interpretation, the indications for AI technologies will continue to grow and are limited only by our collective imagination on how best to deploy this technology.An essential mission of academia is education, and challenges are frequently encountered when working to develop and implement comprehensive and effectively targeted curriculum appropriate for the diverse set of learners assigned to teaching faculty. Curriculum development in this context frequently requires substantial efforts to identify baseline knowledge, learning needs, content requirement, and education strategies. Large language models offer the promise of targeted and nimble curriculum and content development that can be individualized to a variety of learners at various stages of training. This technology has not yet been widely evaluated in the context of education deployment, but it is imperative that consideration be given to the role of AI in curriculum development and how best to deploy and monitor this technology to ensure optimal implementation.