Julian Aliste

Diaphragm-Sparing Nerve Blocks for Shoulder Surgery.

Abstract Shoulder surgery can result in significant postoperative pain. Interscalene brachial plexus blocks (ISBs) constitute the current criterion standard for analgesia but may be contraindicated in patients with pulmonary pathology due to the inherent risk of phrenic nerve block and symptomatic hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. Although ultrasound-guided ISB with small volumes (5 mL), dilute local anesthetic (LA) concentrations, and LA injection 4 mm lateral to the brachial plexus have been shown to reduce the risk of phrenic nerve block, no single intervention can decrease its incidence below 20%. Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular blocks with LA injection posterolateral to the brachial plexus may anesthetize the shoulder without incidental diaphragmatic dysfunction, but further confirmatory trials are required. Ultrasound-guided C7 root blocks also seem to offer an attractive, diaphragm-sparing alternative to ISB. However, additional large-scale studies are needed to confirm their efficacy and to quantify the risk of periforaminal vascular breach. Combined axillary-suprascapular nerve blocks may provide adequate postoperative analgesia for minor shoulder surgery but do not compare favorably to ISB for major surgical procedures. One intriguing solution lies in the combined use of infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks and suprascapular nerve blocks. Theoretically, the infraclavicular approach targets the posterior and lateral cords, thus anesthetizing the axillary nerve (which supplies the anterior and posterior shoulder joint), as well as the subscapular and lateral pectoral nerves (both of which supply the anterior shoulder joint), whereas the suprascapular nerve block anesthetizes the posterior shoulder. Future randomized trials are required to validate the efficacy of combined infraclavicular-suprascapular blocks for shoulder surgery.

A Multicenter Randomized Comparison Between Intravenous and Perineural Dexamethasone for Ultrasound-Guided Infraclavicular Block.

Background and Objectives This multicenter, randomized trial compared intravenous (IV) and perineural (PN) dexamethasone for ultrasound (US)-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block. Our research hypothesis was both modalities would result in similar durations of motor block. Methods One hundred fifty patients undergoing upper limb surgery with US-guided infraclavicular block were randomly allocated to receive IV or PN dexamethasone (5 mg). The local anesthetic agent (35 mL of lidocaine 1%-bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine 5 &mgr;g/mL) was identical in all subjects. Patients and operators were blinded to the nature of IV and PN injectates. During the performance of the block, the performance time, number of needle passes, procedural pain, and complications (vascular puncture, paresthesia) were recorded. Subsequently, a blinded observer assessed the success rate (defined as a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 of 16 points at 30 minutes), onset time as well as the incidence of surgical anesthesia (defined as the ability to complete surgery without local infiltration, supplemental blocks, IV opioids, or general anesthesia). Postoperatively (at 24 hours), the blinded observer contacted patients with successful blocks to enquire about the duration of motor block, sensory block, and postoperative analgesia. The main outcome variable was the duration of motor block. Results No intergroup differences were observed in terms of technical execution (performance time/number of needle passes/procedural pain/complications), onset time, success rate, and surgical anesthesia. However, compared to its IV counterpart, PN dexamethasone provided 19% to 22% longer durations for motor block (15.7 ± 6.2 vs 12.9 ± 5.5 hours; P = 0.009), sensory block (16.8 ± 4.4 vs 13.9 ± 5.4 hours; P = 0.002), and postoperative analgesia (22.1 ± 8.5 vs 18.6 ± 6.7 hours; P = 0.014). Conclusions Compared with its IV counterpart, PN dexamethasone (5 mg) provides a longer duration of motor block, sensory block, and postoperative analgesia for US-guided infraclavicular block. Future dose-finding studies are required to elucidate the optimal dose of dexamethasone.

A Randomized Comparison Between Conventional and Waveform-Confirmed Loss of Resistance for Thoracic Epidural Blocks.

Background and Objectives Epidural waveform analysis (EWA) provides a simple confirmatory adjunct for loss of resistance (LOR): when the needle tip is correctly positioned inside the epidural space, pressure measurement results in a pulsatile waveform. In this randomized trial, we compared conventional and EWA-confirmed LOR in 2 teaching centers. Our research hypothesis was that EWA-confirmed LOR would decrease the failure rate of thoracic epidural blocks. Methods One hundred patients undergoing thoracic epidural blocks for thoracic surgery, abdominal surgery, or rib fractures were randomized to conventional LOR or EWA-LOR. The operator was allowed as many attempts as necessary to achieve a satisfactory LOR (by feel) in the conventional group. In the EWA-LOR group, LOR was confirmed by connecting the epidural needle to a pressure transducer using a rigid extension tubing. Positive waveforms indicated that the needle tip was positioned inside the epidural space. The operator was allowed a maximum of 3 different intervertebral levels to obtain a positive waveform. If waveforms were still absent at the third level, the operator simply accepted LOR as the technical end point. However, the patient was retained in the EWA-LOR group (intent-to-treat analysis). After achieving a satisfactory tactile LOR (conventional group), positive waveforms (EWA-LOR group), or a third intervertebral level with LOR but no waveform (EWA-LOR group), the operator administered a 4-mL test dose of lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 5 &mgr;g/mL. Fifteen minutes after the test dose, a blinded investigator assessed the patient for sensory block to ice. Results Compared with LOR, EWA-LOR resulted in a lower rate of primary failure (2% vs 24%; P = 0.002). Subgroup analysis based on experience level reveals that EWA-LOR outperformed conventional LOR for novice (P = 0.001) but not expert operators. The performance time was longer in the EWA-LOR group (11.2 ± 6.2 vs 8.0 ± 4.6 minutes; P = 0.006). Both groups were comparable in terms of operators level of expertise, depth of the epidural space, approach, and LOR medium. In the EWA-LOR group, operators obtained a pulsatile waveform with the first level attempted in 60% of patients. However, 40% of subjects required performance at a second or third level. Conclusions Compared with its conventional counterpart, EWA-confirmed LOR results in a lower failure rate for thoracic epidural blocks (2% vs 24%) in our teaching centers. Confirmatory EWA provides significant benefits for inexperienced operators.

A systematic review of DURAL puncture epidural analgesia for labor

STUDY OBJECTIVE This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dural puncture epidural analgesia (DPEA) and conventional lumbar epidural analgesia (LEA) for women undergoing labor. INTERVENTIONS The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to July 2018 in order to find RCTs published in the English language, which investigated DPEA in laboring women. MAIN RESULTS Six RCTs were included in the final analysis. Their collective results remain ambiguous. Dural puncture with small (i.e., 26- or 27-gauge) spinal needles seems to confer either minimal benefits or improved analgesic quality and lower pain scores in the first 10 min. Dural puncture with 25-gauge spinal needles has been reported to provide higher success rate than conventional LEA in one trial; however two other studies could only agree on the fact that DPEA results in improved sacral blockade and fewer unilateral blocks compared to LEA. CONCLUSIONS The current evidence regarding DPEA for labor analgesia remains ambiguous. Future research should investigate the optimal (spinal) needle size for dural puncture as well as factors governing transmeningeal flux of local anesthetics and opioids in the presence of a dural hole.

Reply to Dr Price

will almost certainly result in a greater degree of arm and hand paralysis than seen with ISB performed at the level of C5– C6. In addition, they must also be compared with CSANB to see whether they have lower 24-hour pain scores that those reported following ISB. The technique proposed by Tran et al, combining suprascapular nerve with infraclavicular block, must also be compared with CSANB with regard to rebound pain, but as there are 2 separate injections, it may have a more favorable resolution profile. On the downside, it will also result in a numb arm. Because most shoulder surgery in New Zealand is performed using both a nerve block and general anesthesia, the fact that CSANB cannot be used with sedation alone is seldom an issue. However, where it is preferable to avoid both general anesthesia and prolonged PhNB, I use ISB and CSANB in combination. The ISB is performed with 5 mL of lignocaine. The low volume minimizes the degree of PhNB, and should it be poorly tolerated, it does wear off quickly. A ropivacaine CSANB extends analgesia beyond ISB resolution. One advantage of this combination is that the lignocaine ISB is still active in the immediate postoperative period, when anterior pain not covered by CSANB would be at its most intense.