BackgroundEffective communication is critical for patient safety. One potential threat to communication in the operating room is incivility. Although examined in other industries, little has been done to examine how incivility impacts the ability to deliver safe care in a crisis. We therefore sought to determine how incivility influenced anaesthesiology resident performance during a standardised simulation scenario of occult haemorrhage.MethodsThis is a multicentre, prospective, randomised control trial from three academic centres. Anaesthesiology residents were randomly assigned to either a normal or ‘rude’ environment and subjected to a validated simulated operating room crisis. Technical and non-technical performance domains including vigilance, diagnosis, communication and patient management were graded on survey with Likert scales by blinded raters and compared between groups.Results76 participants underwent randomisation with 67 encounters included for analysis (34 control, 33 intervention). Those exposed to incivility scored lower on every performance metric, including a binary measurement of overall performance with 91.2% (control) versus 63.6% (rude) obtaining a passing score (p=0.009). Binary logistic regression to predict this outcome was performed to assess impact of confounders. Only the presence of incivility reached statistical significance (OR 0.110, 95% CI 0.022 to 0.544, p=0.007). 65% of the rude group believed the surgical environment negatively impacted performance; however, self-reported performance assessment on a Likert scale was similar between groups (p=0.112).ConclusionAlthough self-assessment scores were similar, incivility had a negative impact on performance. Multiple areas were impacted including vigilance, diagnosis, communication and patient management even though participants were not aware of these effects. It is imperative that these behaviours be eliminated from operating room culture and that interpersonal communication in high-stress environments be incorporated into medical training.

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.

No abstract

Periarticular local infiltration analgesia (LIA) is integral to multimodal analgesia following total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, the duration of analgesia using traditional long-acting local anesthetics is often insufficient. LIA with slow-release liposomal bupivacaine may provide extended analgesia, but evidence of efficacy beyond the first 24 hours is conflicting. This meta-analysis compares the effects of periarticular liposomal and plain bupivacaine LIA on day 2 analgesic outcomes post-TKA. Trials comparing liposomal and plain bupivacaine LIA for TKA were sought. The two coprimary outcomes were (1) cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption and (2) difference in area under the curve (AUC) of pooled rest pain scores on day 2 (24–48 hours) post-TKA. We also evaluated pain and analgesic consumption on day 3 (48–72 hours), functional recovery, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction; and opioid-related side effects. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling. Seventeen trials (1836 patients) were analyzed. Comparing liposomal versus plain bupivacaine LIA for TKA failed to detect differences in morphine consumption and pain AUC on day 2 postoperatively, with mean differences of 0.54 mg (95% CI −5.09 to 6.18) and 0.08 cm/hour (95% CI −0.19 to 0.35), respectively (high-quality evidence). Secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any additional analgesic, functional or safety advantages to liposomal bupivacaine on postoperative day 2 or 3. Results indicate that liposomal and plain bupivacaine LIAs are not different for extended postoperative analgesic outcomes, including pain control, opioid consumption, as well as functional and safety outcomes on days 2 and 3 post-TKA. High-quality evidence does not support using liposomal bupivacaine LIA for TKA.

Lung transplant recipients are at particular high risk for postoperative respiratory failure as a result of poorly controlled pain, inadequate graft expansion, decreased cough, and reliance on systemic opioid therapy. Thoracic epidural and paravertebral blocks have been employed with the goal of improving postoperative pain control, improving pulmonary mechanics, and limiting the need for narcotic administration. These approaches require a needle position in proximity to the neuraxis and may cause significant hypotension that is poorly tolerated in transplant patients. Additionally, the use of anticoagulation or underlying clotting disorder limits the use of these regional blocks because of the concern of hematoma and subsequent neurologic injury. Ultrasound-guided continuous erector spinae plane (ESP) block has been shown to be efficacious for pain control following thoracotomy but has had minimal investigations following lung transplantation. In this study, we describe the effective use of a continuous erector spinae plane block to provide analgesia in a postoperative lung transplant recipient receiving systemic anticoagulation. The use of an ESP block with a more superficial needle tract that is further removed from the neuraxis allowed for a greater safety profile while providing efficacious pain control, decreased reliance on systemic narcotics, and improved oxygen saturation. The ESP block was effective in this case and thus may be a valuable alternative following lung transplantation for patients who are not candidates for thoracic epidural or paravertebral approaches.

Purpose To evaluate the effect of the single-shot quadratus lumborum (QL) block versus femoral nerve and fascia iliacus (F/FI) blocks performed preoperatively on perioperative opioid requirements, subjective pain scores, and time to discharge. Methods Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and had a preoperative nerve block between January 2017 and August 2019 at our institution were identified. Patients were separated into 2 groups: those who either received a preoperative single-shot QL block or a preoperative single-shot F/FI block. All patients received general anesthesia. Intraoperative, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and total morphine equivalents were analyzed using unpaired t test. Secondary outcome measures including total time in PACU and block-related complications were recorded and analyzed as well. Results One hundred one patients were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-three patients received preoperative QL blocks, and 58 patients received preoperative F/FI blocks. Demographics and operative characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Patients receiving a QL block required significantly lower total morphine equivalents (63.1 vs 87.0, P < .001). Patients receiving a QL block also had shorter PACU stays (116 vs 148 minutes, P < .001) and lower subjective pain scores at the time of discharge (3.27 vs 4.98, P < .001) compared with the F/FI block group. There were also significant decreases in the number of intraoperative opioids (42.1 vs 58.4, P < .001) and PACU opioids (20.7 vs 28.7, P = .03) used when analyzed separately. Two patients in the femoral nerve block group had noted a fall postoperatively while the block was in effect. No patients in the QL block group had a block-related complication. Conclusions Patients receiving a preoperative QL block for hip arthroscopy demonstrated lower total opioid requirements, shorter PACU stay, and lower pain scores at discharge than patients receiving preoperative F/FI blocks with no reported adverse events. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Background: Despite the increasing prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) in pregnant women, there are limited studies on their anesthesia care and analgesic outcomes after cesarean delivery (CD). Methods: Patients with OUD on either buprenorphine or methadone maintenance therapy who underwent CD at our institution from 2011 to 2018 were identified. Anesthetic details and analgesic outcomes, including daily opioid consumption and pain scores, were compared between patients maintained on buprenorphine and methadone. Analgesic outcomes were also evaluated according to anesthetic type (neuraxial or general anesthesia) and daily buprenorphine/methadone dose to determine if these factors impacted pain after delivery. Results: A total of 146 patients were included (buprenorphine n=99 (67.8%), methadone n=47 (32.2%)). Among all patients: 74% had spinal/CSE, 15% epidural, and 11% general anesthesia. Anesthesia types were similar among buprenorphine and methadone patients. For spinal anesthetics, intrathecal fentanyl (median 15 µg) and morphine (median 100 µg) were commonly given (97.2% and 96.3%, respectively), and dosed similarly between groups. Among epidural anesthetics, epidural morphine (median 2 mg) was commonly administered (90.9%), while fentanyl (median 100 µg) was less common (54.5%). Buprenorphine and methadone groups consumed similar amounts of oxycodone equivalents per 24 hours of hospitalization (80.6 vs 76.3 mg; p=0.694) and had similar peak pain scores (8.3 vs 8.0; p=0.518). Daily methadone dose correlated weakly with opioid consumption (R=0.3; p=0.03), although buprenorphine dose did not correlate with opioid consumption or pain scores. General anesthesia correlated with greater oxycodone consumption in the first 24 hours (median 156.1 vs 91.7 mg; p=0.004) and greater IV PCA use (63% vs 7%; p<0.001) compared to neuraxial anesthesia. Conclusion:Patients on buprenorphine and methadone had similar high opioid consumption and pain scores after CD. The anesthetic details and analgesic outcomes reported in this investigation may serve as a useful reference for future prospective investigations and aid in the clinical care of these patients.

A 70 year-old female patient presented for a right humeral head replacement. Preoperatively an interscalene catheter was placed and postoperatively connected to an elastomeric pump for continuous infusion at 8 mL/h of Ropivacaine 0.2% with an additional 5 mL patient activated bolus available every 30 min. About 17 h after the elastomeric pump was connected to the catheter, the 550 mL reservoir was found to be empty, indicating the pump’s infusion rate was more than 32 mL/h despite the pump still being set at an infusion rate of 8 mL/h with a possible 5 mL bolus every 30 min. There was no visible damage or leak in the pump system, and the insertion site was dry. The patient denied any changes to the pump settings. She was alert and oriented and denied any signs of local anesthetic toxicity. The catheter was immediately pulled and the manufacturer notified. The manufacturer found a red tab broken inside the patient-controlled bolus remote resulting in the over-infusion. Despite the dependability of elastomeric pumps, healthcare providers must be aware of their possible complications and malfunctions.