Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of upper and lower limb nerve blocks.

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.

Enhanced Recovery after Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Quality of Patient Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Prospective trials of enhanced recovery after spine surgery are lacking. We tested the hypothesis that an enhanced recovery pathway improves quality of recovery after one- to two-level lumbar fusion. METHODS: A patient- and assessor-blinded trial of 56 patients randomized to enhanced recovery (17 evidence-based pre-, intra-, and postoperative care elements) or usual care was performed. The primary outcome was Quality of Recovery-40 score (40 to 200 points) at postoperative day 3. Twelve points defined the clinically important difference. Secondary outcomes included Quality of Recovery-40 at days 0 to 2, 14, and 56; time to oral intake and discharge from physical therapy; length of stay; numeric pain scores (0 to 10); opioid consumption (morphine equivalents); duration of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia use; complications; and markers of surgical stress (interleukin 6, cortisol, and C-reactive protein). RESULTS: The analysis included 25 enhanced recovery patients and 26 usual care patients. Significantly higher Quality of Recovery-40 scores were found in the enhanced recovery group at postoperative day 3 (179 ± 14 vs. 170 ± 16; P = 0.041) without reaching the clinically important difference. There were no significant differences in recovery scores at days 0 (175 ± 16 vs. 162 ± 22; P = 0.059), 1 (174 ± 18 vs. 164 ± 15; P = 0.050), 2 (174 ± 18 vs. 167 ± 17; P = 0.289), 14 (184 ± 13 vs. 180 ± 12; P = 0.500), and 56 (187 ± 14 vs. 190 ± 8; P = 0.801). In the enhanced recovery group, subscores on the Quality of Recovery-40 comfort dimension were higher (longitudinal mean score difference, 4; 95% CI, 1, 7; P = 0.008); time to oral intake (-3 h; 95% CI, -6, -0.5; P = 0.010); and duration of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (-11 h; 95% CI, -19, -6; P < 0.001) were shorter; opioid consumption was lower at day 1 (-57 mg; 95% CI, -130, -5; P = 0.030) without adversely affecting pain scores (-2; 95% CI, -3, 0; P = 0.005); and C-reactive protein was lower at day 3 (6.1; 95% CI, 3.8, 15.7 vs. 15.9; 95% CI, 6.6, 19.7; P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant gains in early recovery were achieved by an enhanced recovery pathway. However, significant clinical impact was not demonstrated.

Hemodynamically significant cardiac arrhythmias during general anesthesia for spine surgery: A case series and literature review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Hemodynamically significant bradycardia and cardiac arrest (CA) are rare under general anesthesia (GA) for spine surgery. Although patient risks are well defined, emerging data implicate surgical, anesthetic and neurologic factors which should be considered in the immediate management and decision to continue or terminate surgery. PURPOSE: To characterize causes and contributors to significant arrhythmias during spine surgery. We also provide an updated literature review to inform spine care teams and aid in the management of intraoperative bradycardia and CA. STUDY DESIGN: Case series and literature review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Six patients who underwent spine surgery from 03/2016 to 01/2020 at a single institution and developed unexpected hemodynamically significant arrhythmia. OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was to identify potential risk factors of interest for significant arrhythmia during spine surgery. METHODS: Medical records of patients who underwent spine surgery from 03/2016 to 01/2020 at a single institution and developed unexpected hemodynamically significant arrhythmia during spine surgery were identified from a departmental Quality Assurance Database. We evaluated the presence/absence of patient, surgical, anesthetic and neurologic risk factors and estimated the most likely etiology of the event, immediate and subsequent management, whether surgery was postponed or continued and outcomes. RESULTS: We found a temporal relationship of bradyarrhythmia and CA after somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) stimulation in 4/6 cases and pharmacy/polypharmacy in 2/6. Surgery was completed in 4/6 patients, and terminated in 2/6 (subsequently completed in both). We found no adverse outcomes in any patients. Our literature review predominately identified case reports for guidance to support decision making. New literaure suggests peripheral nerve blocks and opioid-sparing anesthetic agents should also be considered. CONCLUSIONS: Significant bradycardia and CA during spine surgery does not always require termination of the surgical procedure. Decision making should be undertaken in each case individually, with an updated awareness of potential causes. The study also suggests the need for large prospective studies to adequately assess incidence, risk factors and outcomes.

The Fibromyalgia Survey Score Correlates With Preoperative Pain Phenotypes But Does Not Predict Pain Outcomes After Shoulder Arthroscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Fibromyalgia (FM) characteristics can be evaluated using a simple, self-reported measure that correlates with postoperative opioid consumption after lower-extremity joint arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine whether preoperative pain history and the FM survey score can predict postoperative outcomes after shoulder arthroscopy, which may cause moderate to severe pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 100 shoulder arthroscopy patients completed preoperative validated self-report measures to assess baseline quality of recovery score, physical functioning, depression, anxiety, and neuropathic pain. FM characteristics were evaluated using a validated measure of widespread pain and comorbid symptoms on a 0 to 31 scale. Outcomes were assessed on postoperative day 2 (opioid consumption [primary], pain, physical functioning, quality of recovery score), and day 14 (opioid consumption, pain). RESULTS: FM survey scores ranged from 0 to 13. The cohort was divided into tertiles for univariate analyses. Preoperative depression and anxiety (P<0.001) and neuropathic pain (P=0.008) were higher, and physical functioning was lower (P<0.001), in higher FM survey score groups. The fibromyalgia survey score was not associated with postoperative pain or opioid consumption; however, it was independently associated with poorer quality of recovery scores (P=0.001). The only independent predictor of postoperative opioid use was preoperative opioid use (P=0.038). DISCUSSION: FM survey scores were lower than those in a previous study of joint arthroplasty. Although they distinguished a negative preoperative pain phenotype, FM scores were not independently associated with postoperative opioid consumption. Further research is needed to elucidate the impact of a FM-like phenotype on postoperative analgesic outcomes.