No benefit of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane blocks over wound infiltration with local anaesthetic in elective laparoscopic colonic surgery: results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Advances in laparoscopic techniques combined with enhanced recovery pathways have led to faster recuperation and discharge after colorectal surgery. Peripheral nerve blockade using transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks reduce opioid requirements and provide better analgesia for laparoscopic colectomies than do inactive controls. This double-blind randomized study was performed to compare TAP blocks using bupivacaine with standardized wound infiltration with local anaesthetic (LA). METHOD: Seventy-one patients were randomized to receive either TAP block or wound infiltration. The TAP blocks were performed by experienced anaesthetists who used ultrasound guidance to deliver 40 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine post-induction into the transverse abdominis plane. In the control group, 40 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine was injected around the trocar and the extraction site by the surgeon. Both groups received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine. Patients and nursing staff assessed pain scores 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery. The primary outcome was overall morphine use in the first 48 h. RESULTS: Of the 71 patients, 20 underwent a right hemicolectomy and 51 a high anterior resection. The modified intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differences in overall morphine use [47.3 (36.2-58.5) mg vs 46.7 (36.2-57.3) mg; mean (95% CI), P = 0.8663] in the first 48 h. Pain scores were similar at 6, 12, 24 and 48 h. No differences were found regarding time to mobilization, resumption of diet and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: In elective laparoscopic colectomies, standardized wound infiltration with LA has the same analgesic effect as TAP blocks post-induction using bupivacaine at 48 h.

Assessment of procedural skills in anaesthesia.

A key aspect of the practice of anaesthesia is the ability to perform practical procedures efficiently and safely. Decreased working hours during training, an increasing focus on patient safety, and greater accountability have resulted in a paradigm shift in medical education. The resulting international trend towards competency-based training demands robust methods of evaluation of all domains of learning. The assessment of procedural skills in anaesthesia is poor compared with other domains of learning and has fallen behind surgical fields. Logbooks and procedure lists are best suited to providing information regarding likely opportunities within training programmes. Retrospective global scoring and direct observation without specific criteria are unreliable. The current best evidence for a gold standard for assessment of procedural skills in anaesthesia consists of a combination of previously validated checklists and global rating scales, used prospectively by a trained observer, for a procedure performed in an actual patient. Future research should include core assessment parameters to ensure methodological rigor and facilitate robust comparisons with other studies: (i) reliability, (ii) validity, (iii) feasibility, (iv) cost-effectiveness, and (v) comprehensiveness with varying levels of difficulty. Simulation may become a key part of the future of formative and summative skills assessment in anaesthesia; however, research is required to develop and test simulators that are realistic enough to be suitable for use in high-stakes evaluation.