Complications of Regional Anesthesia Peripheral Nerve Blocks on DVD: Upper Limbs and Lower Limbs

JAMA ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 298 (21) ◽  
pp. 2546
Author(s):  
Alex Macario
2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupama Wadhwa ◽  
Sunitha Kanchi Kandadai ◽  
Sujittra Tongpresert ◽  
Detlef Obal ◽  
Ralf Erich Gebhard

Nerve stimulation and ultrasound have been introduced to the practice of regional anesthesia mostly in the last two decades. Ultrasound did not gain as much popularity as the nerve stimulation until a decade ago because of the simplicity, accuracy and portability of the nerve stimulator. Ultrasound is now available in most academic centers practicing regional anesthesia and is a popular tool amongst trainees for performance of nerve blocks. This review article specifically discusses the role of ultrasonography for deeply situated nerves or plexuses such as the infraclavicular block for the upper extremity and lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve blocks for the lower extremity. Transitioning from nerve stimulation to ultrasound-guided blocks alone or in combination is beneficial in certain scenarios. However, not every patient undergoing regional anesthesia technique benefits from the use of ultrasound, especially when circumstances resulting in difficult visualization such as deep nerve blocks and/or block performed by inexperienced ultrasonographers. The use of ultrasound does not replace experience and knowledge of relevant anatomy, especially for visualization of deep structures. In certain scenarios, ultrasound may not offer additional value and substantial amount of time may be spent trying to find relevant structures or even provide a false sense of security, especially to an inexperienced operator. We look at available literature on the role of ultrasound for the performance of deep peripheral nerve blocks and its benefits.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Carvalho ◽  
Romy D. Yun ◽  
Edward R. Mariano

Background and Objectives: Continuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNB) provide many additional benefits compared to single-injection peripheral nerve blocks (SPNB). However, the time and costs associated with CPNB provision have not been previously considered. The objective of this study was to compare the time required and estimated personnel costs associated with CPNB and SPNB. Methods: This IRB-exempt observational study involved provision of preoperative regional anesthesia procedures in a “block room” model by a dedicated team during routine clinical care. The primary outcome, the time to perform ultrasound-guided popliteal-sciatic blocks, was recorded prospectively. This time measurement was broken down into individual tasks: time to place monitors, prepare the equipment, scan and identify the target, perform the block, and clean up post-procedure. For peripheral nerve block catheters, time to insert, locate, and secure the catheter was also recorded. Cost estimates for physician time were determined using published national mean hourly wages. Results: Time measurements were recorded for 24 nerve block procedures (12 CPNB and 12 SPNB). The median (IQR; range) total time (seconds) taken to perform blocks was 1132 (1083-1290; 1060-1623) for CPNB versus 505 (409-589; 368-635) for SPNB (Table 1; p<0.001). The median (IQR) cost attributed to physician time during block performance was $35.20 ($33.66-$40.11) and $15.69 ($12.73-$18.32) for CPNB and SPNB, respectively. Conclusion: CPNB requires approximately 10 more minutes per procedure to perform when compared to SPNB. This additional time should be considered along with potential patient benefits and available resources when developing a regional anesthesia and acute pain medicine service.


2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 448-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joselo D. Macachor ◽  
Chandra M. Kumar ◽  
Edwin Seet ◽  
Leng Zoo Tan

Author(s):  
Olufunke Dada ◽  
Alicia Gonzalez Zacarias ◽  
Corinna Ongaigui ◽  
Marco Echeverria-Villalobos ◽  
Michael Kushelev ◽  
...  

Regional anesthesia has been considered a great tool for maximizing post-operative pain control while minimizing opioid consumption. Post-operative rebound pain, characterized by hyperalgesia after the peripheral nerve block, can however diminish or negate the overall benefit of this modality due to a counter-productive increase in opioid consumption once the block wears off. We reviewed published literature describing pathophysiology and occurrence of rebound pain after peripheral nerve blocks in patients undergoing orthopedic procedures. A search of relevant keywords was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Twenty-eight articles (n = 28) were included in our review. Perioperative considerations for peripheral nerve blocks and other alternatives used for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries were discussed. Multimodal strategies including preemptive analgesia before the block wears off, intra-articular or intravenous anti-inflammatory medications, and use of adjuvants in nerve block solutions may reduce the burden of rebound pain. Additionally, patient education regarding the possibility of rebound pain is paramount to ensure appropriate use of prescribed pre-emptive analgesics and establish appropriate expectations of minimized opioid requirements. Understanding the impact of rebound pain and strategies to prevent it is integral to effective utilization of regional anesthesia to reduce negative consequences associated with long-term opioid consumption.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash Ghaffari ◽  
Marlene Kanstrup Jørgensen ◽  
Helle Rømer ◽  
Maibrit Pape B. Sørensen ◽  
Søren Kold ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives Continuous peripheral nerve blocks (cPNBs) have shown promising results in pain management after orthopaedic surgeries. However, they can be associated with some risks and limitations. The purpose of this study is to describe our experience with the cPNBs regarding efficacy and adverse events in patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries on the lower extremity in different subspecialties. Methods This is a prospective cohort study on collected data from perineural catheters for pain management after orthopedic surgeries in lower limbs. Catheters were placed by experienced anesthesiologists using sterile technique. After an initial bolus dose of 10–20 mL ropivacaine 0.5% (weight adjusted), the catheters were secured and connected to disposable mechanical infusion pumps with ropivacaine 0.2% (basal infusion rate = 6 mL/h; weight adjusted (0.2 mL/kg/h)). After catheterization, the patients were examined daily, by specially educated acute pain service nurses. Pro re nata (PRN) or fixed boluses (10 mL bupivacaine 0.25%; weight adjusted) with an upper limit of 4 times/day, were administered if indicated. Patients’ demographic data, physiological status, and pre-op intake of opioids and other analgesics were registered. The severity of post-operative pain was assessed with ‘Numeric Rating Scale’ (NRS) and ‘Face, legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability’ (FLACC) scale for adults and children, respectively. The need for additional opioids and possible complications were registered. Results We included 547 catheters of 246 patients (Range 1–10 catheters per patient). Overall, 115 (21%) femoral, 162 (30%) saphenous, 66 (12%) sciatic, and 204 (37%) popliteal sciatic nerve catheter were used. 452 (83%) catheters were inserted by a primary procedure, 61(11%) catheters employed as a replacement, and 34 catheters (6.2%) used as a supplement. For guiding the catheterization, ultrasound was applied in 451 catheters (82%), nerve stimulator in 90 catheters (16%), and both methods in 6 catheters (1.1%). The median duration a catheter remained in place was 3 days (IQR = 2–5). The proportion of catheters with a duration of two days was 81, 79, 73, and 71% for femoral, sciatic, saphenous, and popliteal nerve, respectively. In different subspecialties, 91% of catheters in wound and amputations, 89% in pediatric surgery, 76% in trauma, 64% in foot and ankle surgery, and 59% in limb reconstructive surgery remained more than two days. During first 10 days after catheterization, the proportion of pain-free patients were 77–95% at rest and 63–88% during mobilization, 79–92% of the patients did not require increased opioid doses, and 50–67% did not require opioid PRN doses. In addition to 416 catheters (76%), which were removed as planned, the reason for catheter removal was leaving the hospital in 27 (4.9%), loss of efficacy in 69 (13%), dislodgement in 23 (4.2%), leakage in 8 (1.5%), and erythema in 4 catheters (0.73%). No major complication occurred. Conclusions After orthopaedic procedures, cPNBs can be considered as an efficient method for improving pain control and minimizing the use of additional opioids. However, the catheters sometimes might need to be replaced to achieve the desired efficacy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document