Ultrasound-guided interscalene and supraclavicular blocks are effective and safe for shoulder arthroscopy. Temporary and permanent PONS is uncommon.

SummaryIt is proposed that ultrasound guidance decreases the risk of intraneural injection and associated postoperative neurological complications. However, the incidence of unintentional intraneural injection with ultrasound is unknown. Two hundred and fifty-seven patients were enrolled in a prospective, single-blind observational study. All patients underwent a pre-operative neurological examination before ambulatory shoulder arthroscopy with sedation and ultrasound-guided interscalene or supraclavicular block. Patients were followed up at 1 week and at 4-6 weeks postoperatively. Two blinded anaesthesiologists viewed the same video of the ultrasound image during the block offline to determine intraneural trespass. Intraneural injection occurred in 42 patients (17%; 95% CI 12-22%). No patient suffered from postoperative neurological complications (0%; 95% CI 0-1.6%) at follow-up.

No abstract

Our series of 4365 patients had uncomplicated removal of epidural catheters despite INRs ranging from 1.5 to 5.9. Removal was only during initiation of warfarin therapy (up to approximately 50 hrs after warfarin intake) when several vitamin K factors are likely to still be adequate for hemostasis.

No strokes were observed in 4169 patients. The estimated upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for stroke after regional anesthesia for shoulder surgery in the seated position is 0.07%, despite frequent incidence of hypotension.

Criteria to determine which patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) require intensive postoperative monitoring are lacking. Our postoperative OSA patients are all intensively monitored in the PACU and can provide such data. Thus, we reviewed patient records to determine incidence and risk factors for postoperative hypoxemia in OSA patients and subsequent association with postoperative complications. Five hundred twenty-seven charts of patients with OSA based on preoperative ICD-9 codes were reviewed for outcomes including episodes of hypoxemia and hypercarbia. Univariate analysis, logistic regression, and propensity analysis were performed to determine independent risk factors for hypoxemia and association with adverse outcomes. Thirty-three and 11 percent of these patients developed hypoxemia or hypercarbia. Risk factors for hypoxemia were hypercarbia, home bronchodilator use, BMI ≥35, and estimated blood loss ≥250 ml. Patients with hypoxemia had significantly more respiratory interventions and increased intensity of care. Patients with hypoxemia had significantly increased length of stay and risk of wound infections. Severe hypoxemia was associated with significantly more interventions than mild hypoxemia. Propensity analysis confirmed significant association of hypoxemia with adverse outcomes after adjustment for pre-existing risk factors. We conclude that postoperative hypoxemia in OSA patients is associated with adverse outcomes. Risk factors for hypoxemia were identified to guide allocation of monitoring resources to high-risk patients.

No abstract

Study Objective To compare central venous pressure (CVP) with peripheral venous pressure (PVP) monitoring during the intraoperative and postoperative periods in patients undergoing spine surgery. Design Prospective observational study. Setting University-affiliated teaching hospital. Patients 35 ASA physical status 1, 2, and 3 patients. Interventions A peripheral catheter in the forearm or hand and a central catheter into the internal jugular vein were placed for PVP and CVP monitoring, respectively. Measurements CVP and PVP values were collected simultaneously and recorded electronically at 5-minute intervals throughout surgery and in the recovey room. The number of attempts for catheter placement, ease of use, maintenance, and interpretation were recorded. Patient comfort, frequency of complications, and cost were analyzed. Main results The correlation coefficient between CVP and PVP was 0.650 in the operating room (P < 0.0001) and 0.388 in the recovery room (P < 0.0001). There was no difference between groups in number of attempts to place either catheter, maintenance, and interpretation with respect to PVP and CVP monitoring in the operating room. In the recovery room, the nurses reported a higher level of difficulty in interpretation of PVP than CVP, but no differences were noted in ease of maintenance. There were no complications related to either central or peripheral catheter placement. Patient comfort and cost efficiency were higher with a peripheral than a central catheter. Conclusion During clinically relevant conditions, there was limited correlation between PVP and CVP in the prone position during surgery and postoperatively in the recovery room.