Anterior Quadratus Lumborum Block Does Not Provide Superior Pain Control after Hip Arthroscopy: A Double-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy is associated with moderate to severe postoperative pain. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded study investigates the clinically analgesic effect of anterior quadratus lumborum block with multimodal analgesia compared to multimodal analgesia alone. The authors hypothesized that an anterior quadratus lumborum block with multimodal analgesia would be superior for pain control. METHODS: Ninety-six adult patients undergoing ambulatory hip arthroscopy were enrolled. Patients were randomized to either a single-shot anterior quadratus lumborum block (30 ml bupivacaine 0.5% with 2 mg preservative-free dexamethasone) or no block. All patients received neuraxial anesthesia, IV sedation, and multimodal analgesia (IV acetaminophen and ketorolac). The primary outcome was numerical rating scale pain scores at rest and movement at 30 min and 1, 2, 3, and 24 h. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were enrolled and included in the analysis. Anterior quadratus lumborum block with multimodal analgesia (overall treatment effect, marginal mean [standard error]: 4.4 [0.3]) was not superior to multimodal analgesia alone (overall treatment effect, marginal mean [standard error]: 3.7 [0.3]) in pain scores over the study period (treatment differences between no block and anterior quadratus lumborum block, 0.7 [95% CI, -0.1 to 1.5]; P = 0.059). Postanesthesia care unit antiemetic use, patient satisfaction, and opioid consumption for 0 to 24 h were not significantly different. There was no difference in quadriceps strength on the operative side between groups (differences in means, 1.9 [95% CI, -1.5 to 5.3]; P = 0.268). CONCLUSIONS: Anterior quadratus lumborum block may not add to the benefits provided by multimodal analgesia alone after hip arthroscopy. Anterior quadratus lumborum block did not cause a motor deficit. The lack of treatment effect in this study demonstrates a surgical procedure without benefit from this novel block.

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.

Teaching a Point-of-Care Ultrasound Curriculum to Anesthesiology Trainees With Traditional Didactic Lectures or an Online E-Learning Platform: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) provides real-time, dynamic clinical evidence for providers to make potentially lifesaving medical decisions; however, these tools cannot be used effectively without appropriate training. Although there is always the option of traditional didactic methods, there has been a recent trend toward a "reverse classroom" web-based model using online e-learning modules. Our objective was to collect pilot data that would justify a future randomized controlled trial, comparing traditional didactics to an e-learning PoCUS curriculum for lung ultrasonography (LUS) and the focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) exam. METHODS: Anesthesiology interns, residents (CA 1-3), and fellow trainees enrolled in a LUS and FAST exam course and were randomized to receive didactic lectures or e-learning. Trainees completed knowledge pre- and posttests. Surveys were administered to gauge learning satisfaction. All trainees completed a hands-on-training (HOT) workshop. Image acquisition was assessed through practical tests before HOT, immediately after HOT, and 5 months later. RESULTS: Eighteen trainees completed the study. There was no evidence of a difference in change in LUS knowledge test score from baseline to posttest between the e-learning and didactic groups (difference in median percentage point change [95 % CI]: 6.6 [-10.0, 23.2]; P = .411). There was no evidence of a difference in LUS knowledge posttest scores (difference in median percentage points [95% CI]: -0.9 [-4.8, 3.0]; P = .629), FAST knowledge posttest score (0 [incalculable]; P = .999), or post-HOT practical test score (-4.2 [-24.6, 16.3]; P = .672) between groups. There was no evidence of a difference in degree of satisfaction with learning experience between groups (odds ratios [95% CI]: 1.75 [0.31, 9.94]; P = .528). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference between the e-learning and traditional didactic groups in learning or satisfaction outcomes. These results justify establishing an adequately powered, randomized controlled trial assessing the noninferiority of e-learning to traditional didactics for teaching LUS and FAST.

Evaluation of Postgraduates Following Implementation of a Focus Assessed Transthoracic Echocardiography (FATE) Training Course-A Pilot Study.

At our institution, implementation of a formal training course in Basic Focus Assessed Transthoracic Echocardiography (FATE) was associated with an improvement in anesthesia trainees' ability to obtain transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) images. Total image acquisition scores improved by a median (Q1, Q3) 9.1 (2.9,14.7) percentage points from pre-to post-hands-on FATE course (n=20; p=0.001). Participants who returned for a subsequent assessment 5 months following the course demonstrated a median (Q1, Q3) 18.0 (9.1,22.1) percentage point improvement from their pre-course total image acquisition scores (n=11; p=0.002). This pilot study established the feasibility of our program and results suggest that the basic FATE course can be used to teach trainees TTE quickly, effectively, and with significant retention.

Lung Ultrasound for the Regional Anesthesiologist and Acute Pain Specialist.

In this article, we discuss the emerging role of lung point-of-care ultrasonography for regional anesthesiologists and pain management specialists. Lung ultrasonography is a well-established clinical tool that is used on a routine basis in emergency rooms and critical care units internationally to evaluate patients with respiratory distress; however, its benefits to the regional anesthesiologist and pain specialist are not as well known and are practiced less frequently. This review article covers the clinical evidence in support of lung point-of-care ultrasonography as a rapid and superior tool to traditional imaging modalities such as chest radiography and fluoroscopy. As anesthesiologists routinely perform nerve blocks that put patients at potential risk of complications such as pneumothorax or diaphragmatic paresis, it is important to understand how to use lung ultrasonography to evaluate for these conditions, as well as to differentiate between other potential causes of respiratory distress, such as interstitial syndrome and pleural effusions. This article describes the normal and pathological findings that can be used to quickly and confidently evaluate a patient for these conditions.

Diagnosis of Intraabdominal Fluid Extravasation After Hip Arthroscopy With Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Can Identify Patients at an Increased Risk for Postoperative Pain.

BACKGROUND: Intraabdominal fluid extravasation (IAFE) after hip arthroscopy has historically been diagnosed in catastrophic circumstances with abdominal compartment syndrome requiring diuresis or surgical decompression. A previous retrospective study found the prevalence of symptomatic IAFE requiring diuresis or decompression to be 0.16%, with risk factors including surgical procedure and high pump pressures. IAFE can be diagnosed rapidly by using point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) via the Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma (FAST) examination, which is a well-established means to detect free fluid with high specificity and sensitivity. In this study, we used POCUS to determine the incidence of IAFE in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. We predicted a higher incidence and that patients with IAFE would have symptoms of peritoneal irritation such as pain and nausea. METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing ambulatory hip arthroscopy were prospectively enrolled. A FAST examination was performed after induction by a trained anesthesiologist to exclude the preoperative presence of intraperitoneal fluid. Postoperatively, the same anesthesiologist repeated the FAST examination, and patients with new fluid in the abdominal or pelvic peritoneum were diagnosed with IAFE. Patients were followed up in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) for 6 hours assessing pain, antiemetic and opioid use, and length of stay. RESULTS: Sixteen of 100 patients were found to have IAFE (16.0%; 99% confidence interval [CI], 8.4-28.1). These patients had, on average, a greater increase in pain score from their baseline assessment throughout their entire PACU stay (adjusted difference in means [99% CI]: 2.1 points [0.4-3.9]; P = .002). Patients with IAFE used more opioids, but this difference did not meet statistical significance (adjusted difference in means [99% CI]: 7.8 mg oral morphine equivalents [-2.8 to 18.3]; P = .053). There were no differences in postoperative nausea interventions or length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Our incidence of IAFE was 16%, showing that IAFE occurs quite commonly in hip arthroscopy. Patients with IAFE had a greater increase in pain scores from baseline throughout the PACU stay. None of our patients required interventions. These findings suggest that even a small amount of new fluid in the peritoneum may be associated with a worse postoperative experience. This study brings awareness to a common yet potentially life-threatening complication of hip arthroscopy and highlights a unique and meaningful way that anesthesiologists in the perioperative setting can use POCUS to rapidly identify and guide management of these patients. Further studies with a larger sample size are needed to identify surgical and patient risk factors.