Perioperative Breast Analgesia: a Systematic Review of the Evidence for Perioperative Analgesic Medications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast surgery is common and may result in significant acute as well as chronic pain. A wide range of pharmacologic interventions is available including opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, anticonvulsants, and other non-opioids with analgesic properties. We present a review of the evidence for these pharmacologic interventions. A literature search of the MEDLINE database was performed via PubMed with combined terms related to breast surgery, anesthesia, and analgesia. Articles were limited to randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, adult patients undergoing elective surgery on the breast (not including biopsy), and pharmacologic interventions only. Article titles and abstracts were screened, and risk of bias assessments were performed. RECENT FINDINGS: The search strategy initially captured 7254 articles of which 60 articles met the full inclusion criteria. Articles were organized according to intervention: 6 opioid agonists, 14 NSAIDs and acetaminophen, 4 alpha-2 agonists, 7 NMDA receptor antagonists, 6 local anesthetics, 7 steroids, 15 anticonvulsants (one of which also discussed an NMDA antagonist), 1 antiarrhythmic, and 2 serotonin reuptake inhibitors (one of which also studied an anticonvulsant). A wide variety of medications is effective for perioperative breast analgesia, but results vary by agent and dose. The most efficacious are likely NSAIDs and anticonvulsants. Some agents may also decrease the incidence of chronic postoperative pain, including flurbiprofen, gabapentin, venlafaxine, and memantine. While many individual agents are well studied, optimal combinations of analgesic medications remain unclear.

Methamphetamine in Orthopaedics: Considerations of an At-Risk Population.

¼: Methamphetamine use by orthopaedic trauma patients has risen to epidemic proportions. ¼: Perioperative methamphetamine use by orthopaedic trauma patients requires physicians to consider both medical and psychosocial factors during treatment. ¼: Behavioral and psychosocial effects of methamphetamine use present barriers to care. ¼: Patients who use methamphetamine face elevated rates of complications.

Daring discourse: should acute pain medicine be a stand-alone service?

Acute pain medicine (APM) has been incorporated into healthcare systems in varied manners with some practices implementing a stand-alone acute pain service (APS) staffed by consultants who are not simultaneously providing care in the operating room (OR). In contrast, other practices have developed a concurrent OR-APS model where there is no independent team beyond the intraoperative care providers. There are theoretical advantages of each approach primarily with respect to patient outcomes and financial cost, and there is little evidence to instruct best practice. In this daring discourse, we present two opposing perspectives on whether or not APM should be a stand-alone service. While evidence to guide best practice is limited, our goal is to encourage discussion of the varied APS practice models and research into their impact on outcomes and costs.

Stellate Ganglion Blockade With Continuous Infusion Versus Single Injection for Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmia Storm.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficacy and safety of single-injection stellate ganglion block (SGB) with a novel continuous-infusion SGB procedure. BACKGROUND: SGB for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) storm is typically performed with a single injection of local anesthetic agents. METHODS: Eighteen patients underwent left-sided SGB (9 single injection and 9 continuous infusion). The number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies and sustained VAs/24 h were compared between the pre-SGB and post-SGB periods. Adverse effects of SGB and in-hospital outcomes were also compared. RESULTS: The mean age was 61.1 ± 13.7 years. The presenting arrhythmia was ventricular tachycardia in 13 (72%) patients, ventricular fibrillation in 4 (22%), and both in 1 (6%). Single-injection SGB reduced VA/24 h by a median of 0.3 (interquartile range: 0.2 to 0.9), which was a 45% reduction (p = 0.008), resulting in 5 of 9 patients with no recurrent VA. Continuous-infusion SGB reduced VA/24 h by a median of 2.0 (interquartile range: 1.3 to 3.0), which was a 94% reduction (p = 0.004), resulting in 7 of 9 patients with no recurrent VA (p = 0.006 for comparison with single injection). Transient left arm weakness and voice hoarseness were each noted in 1 patient in both groups. Repeat SGB was required in 4 (44%) patients in the single-injection group. In-hospital outcomes were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with VA storm, SGB performed via both continuous-infusion and single-injection approaches provided significant reductions in VA burden. Compared to single-injection SGB, continuous-infusion was associated with a greater reduction in VA burden and similar adverse events, without the need for repeat procedures.

Spinal anesthesia in a designated block bay for total joint arthroplasty: improving operating room efficiency.

BACKGROUND: Creating highly efficient operating room (OR) protocols for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is a challenging and multifactorial process. We evaluated whether spinal anesthesia in a designated block bay (BBSA) would reduce time to incision, improve first case start time and decrease conversion to general anesthesia (GA). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study on the first 86 TJA cases with BBSA from April to December 2018, compared with 344 TJA cases with spinal anesthesia performed in the OR (ORSA) during the same period. All TJA cases were included if the anesthetic plan was for spinal anesthesia. Patients were excluded if circumstances delayed start time or time to incision (advanced vascular access, pacemaker interrogation, surgeon availability). Data were extracted and analyzed via a linear mixed effects model to compare time to incision, via a Wilcoxon rank-sum test to compare first case start time, and via a Fisher's exact test to compare conversion to GA between the groups. RESULTS: In the mixed effect model, the BBSA group time to incision was 5.37 min less than the ORSA group (p=0.018). The BBSA group had improved median first case start time (30.0 min) versus the ORSA group (40.5 min, p<0.0001). There was lower conversion to GA 2/86 (2.33%) in the BBSA group versus 36/344 (10.47%) in the ORSA group (p=0.018). No serious adverse events were noted in either group. CONCLUSIONS: BBSA had limited impact on time to incision for TJA, with a small decrease for single OR days and no improvement on OR days with two rooms. BBSA was associated with improved first case start time and decreased rate of conversion to GA. Further research is needed to identify how BBSA affects the efficiency of TJA.

Anesthesia residency training in regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine: a competency-based model curriculum.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has shifted to competency-based medical education. This educational framework requires the description of educational outcomes based on the knowledge, skills and behaviors expected of competent trainees. It also requires an assessment program to provide formative feedback to trainees as they progress to competency in each outcome. Critical to the success of a curriculum is its practical implementation. This article describes the development of model curricula for anesthesiology residency training in regional anesthesia and acute pain medicine (core and advanced) using a competency-based framework. We further describe how the curricula were distributed through a shared web-based platform and mobile application.

Perioperative Breast Analgesia: A Qualitative Review of Anatomy and Regional Techniques.

Breast surgery is exceedingly common and may result in significant acute as well as chronic pain. Numerous options exist for the control of perioperative breast pain, including several newly described regional anesthesia techniques, but anesthesiologists have an insufficient understanding of the anatomy of the breast, the anatomic structures disrupted by the various breast surgeries, and the theoretical and experimental evidence supporting the use of the various analgesic options. In this article, we review the anatomy of the breast, common breast surgeries and their potential anatomic sources of pain, and analgesic techniques for managing perioperative pain. We performed a systematic review of the evidence for these analgesic techniques, including intercostal block, epidural administration, paravertebral block, brachial plexus block, and novel peripheral nerve blocks.

Patient Eligibility for Randomized Controlled Trials in Critical Care Medicine: An International Two-Center Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted this study to determine the generalizability of information gained from randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients by assessing the incidence of eligibility for each trial. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. We identified the 15 most highly cited randomized controlled trials in critical care medicine published between 1998 and 2008. We examined the inclusion and exclusion criteria for each randomized controlled trial and then assessed the eligibility of each patient admitted to a study ICU for each randomized controlled trial and calculated rates of potential trial eligibility in the cohort. SETTING: Three ICUs in two academic medical centers in Canada and the United States. PATIENTS: Adults admitted to participating medical or surgical ICU in November 2010 or July 2011. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among the 15 trials, the most common trial inclusion criteria were clinical criteria for sepsis (six trials) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (four trials), use of invasive mechanical ventilation (five trials) or related to ICU type or duration of ICU stay (five trials). Of the 93 patients admitted to a study ICU, 52% of patients (n = 48) did not meet enrollment criteria for any studied randomized controlled trial and 30% (n = 28) were eligible for only one of the 15. Trial ineligibility was mostly due to failure to meet inclusion criteria (87% of screening assessments) rather than meeting specific exclusion criteria (52% of screening assessments). Of the positive screening assessments, 85% occurred on the first day of ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: Slightly more than half of the patients assessed were not eligible for enrollment in any of 15 major randomized controlled trials in critical care, most often due to the absence of the specific clinical condition of study. The majority of patients who met criteria for a randomized controlled trial did so on the first day of ICU admission.