Given the fast development and increasing clinical relevance of ultrasound guidance for thoracic paravertebral blockade, this review article strives (1) to provide comprehensive information on thoracic paravertebral space anatomy, tailored to the needs of a regional anesthesia practitioner, (2) to interpret ultrasound images of the thoracic paravertebral space using cross-sectional anatomical images that are matched in location and plane, and (3) to briefly describe and discuss different ultrasound-guided approaches to thoracic paravertebral blockade. To illustrate the pertinent anatomy, high-resolution photographs of anatomical cross-sections are used. By using voxel anatomy, it is possible to visualize the needle pathway of different approaches in the same human specimen. This offers a unique presentation of this complex anatomical region and is inherently more realistic than anatomical drawings.

BackgroundThere is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques.MethodsWe conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement.ResultsSixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified.ConclusionsHarmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.

Ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block performed at the level of root C7 using 10 mL of ropivacaine 0.75% reduces the incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paresis.

Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block, using 20 mL of 0.75% ropivacaine with the described technique, is not associated with hemidiaphragmatic paresis.

SummarySurgery is the primary therapeutic intervention for breast cancer and can result in significant postoperative pain. We searched the current literature and performed a meta‐analysis in order to compare the analgesic efficacy of the pectoral type‐2 (Pecs II) block with systemic analgesia alone and with a thoracic paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery. Primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were pain scores at 0, 3, 6, 9 and 24 h after surgery, intra‐operative opioid consumption, time to first analgesic request and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We identified 13 randomised controlled trials that included 815 patients. The Pecs II block significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption (standardised difference in means: −13.64 mg oral morphine equivalents; 95%CI: −21.22 to −6.05; p < 0.01) and acute postoperative pain at all intervals in the first 24 h after surgery compared with systemic analgesia alone. Compared with the thoracic paravertebral block, the Pecs II block resulted in similar postoperative opioid consumption (standardised difference in means: −8.73 mg oral morphine equivalents; 95%CI: −18.16 to 0.69; p = 0.07) and postoperative pain scores after first measurement. In conclusion, the Pecs II block offers improved analgesic efficacy compared with systemic analgesia alone and comparable analgesic efficacy to a thoracic paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery.