Neurologic complications associated with regional anesthesia and pain medicine practice are extremely rare. The ASRA Practice Advisory on Neurologic Complications in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine addresses the etiology, differential diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of these complications. This Advisory does not focus on hemorrhagic and infectious complications, because they have been addressed by other recent ASRA Practice Advisories. The current Practice Advisory offers recommendations to aid in the understanding and potential limitation of neurologic complications that may arise during the practice of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. KeywordsComplications of anesthesia; Nerve injury; Spinal anesthesia; Epidural anesthesia; Peripheral nerve block; Regional anesthesia; Pain medicine; Transforaminal block The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) convened a group of experts to develop a Practice Advisory on Neurologic Complications in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. The goal of this Practice Advisory is to provide information for practitioners of regional anesthesia and pain medicine regarding the etiology, differential diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of neurologic complications. This Practice Advisory focuses on neurologic injuries apart from those caused by hemorrhagic 1 or infectious2 -6 complications, both of which have been the subject of other recent ASRA-sponsored Practice Advisories. The current report is a summation of the Practice Advisory's findings and recommendations. Anesthesiologists are strongly encouraged to read the manuscripts that accompany the present summary document, because they contain the details upon which recommendations are based. The accompanying manuscripts represent most of the subtopics discussed at the conference. The recommendations contained within this Practice Advisory represent the opinions of a small group of expert panelists and are based upon their clinical experience, review of limited scientific literature (anatomic and physiologic studies of animals and human cadavers, case reports, retrospective case series, and non-randomized trials), and open forum discussion. Importantly, in this imperfect setting of controversial topics, limited data, and bias inherent to expert opinion, the Panel consistently tended towards making conservative recommendations. We acknowledge that other experts analyzing the same information may arrive at recommendations different than ours. The recommendations contained herein are not intended to define standard practice or to ensure the avoidance of adverse outcomes. Furthermore, the recommendations are subject to change as new information becomes available. Recommendations from the Practice Advisory are not intended to replace clinical judgment, and specific risk-to-benefit discussions as they pertain to individual patients.Because neurologic injuries related to anesthesia and pain medicine practice are extremely rare, standard tools of evidence-based medicine such as randomized c...

Commercially prepared oral midazolam syrup is effective in producing sedation and anxiolysis in doses as small as 0.25 mg/kg; there is a slightly faster onset with increasing the dose to 1.0 mg/kg. At all doses, 97% of patients demonstrated satisfactory sedation, whereas 86% demonstrated satisfactory anxiolysis when the face mask was applied.

Remifentanil hydrochloride is a new, ultrashort-acting opioid metabolized by nonspecific plasma and tissue esterases. We conducted this multicenter study to examine the hemodynamic response and recovery profile of premedicated children undergoing strabismus repair who were randomly assigned to receive one of four treatment drugs (remifentanil, alfentanil, isoflurane, or propofol) along with nitrous oxide and oxygen for maintenance of anesthesia. Induction of anesthesia was by nitrous oxide, oxygen, and halothane or nitrous oxide, oxygen, and propofol. Anesthesia was then maintained with remifentanil 1.0 microgram/kg over 30-60 s, followed by a constant infusion of 1.0 microgram.kg-1.min-1, alfentanil 100 micrograms/kg bolus followed by a constant infusion of 2.5 micrograms.kg-1.min-1, propofol 2.5 mg/kg bolus followed by a constant infusion of 200 micrograms.kg-1.min-1, or isoflurane 1.0 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration. The infusions of the anesthetics and the administration of the inhaled gases were adjusted clinically by predetermined protocols. Elapsed time intervals from the end of surgery to the time the patients were tracheally extubated and displayed purposeful movement, as well as the time the patients met the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and hospital discharge times, were recorded. Heart rate and systolic and diastolic blood pressure were measured at fixed intervals. In addition, cardiovascular side effects (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypertension) as well as vomiting, pruritus, agitation, and postoperative hypoxemia were also noted. There were no significant differences in patient demographics among the treatment groups. There was no difference in the early recovery variables (times to extubation and purposeful movement) or the times to PACU and hospital discharge among groups. There were significant differences in side effects among the groups. Patients who received remifentanil had higher PACU objective pain-discomfort scores than those who received alfentanil and propofol. Patients anesthetized with alfentanil had a greater incidence in the use of naloxone and a greater incidence of postoperative hypoxemia compared with those anesthetized with remifentanil. The incidence of postoperative hypoxemia was the same for remifentanil, propofol, and isoflurane groups. There were no significant differences in the incidence of emesis among the four groups, and all four groups had similar hemodynamic profiles. We conclude that remifentanil appears to be an effective drug for anesthesia. Its hemodynamic and recovery profile appear similar to other comparable drugs. Based on previous pharmacokinetic studies, the 1.0 microgram.kg-1.min-1 infusion may be twice the 50% effective dose observed in adults. In this study, the relative "overdose" of remifentanil was well tolerated and did not prolong recovery.

Anesthetic agents disrupt neurodevelopment in animal models, but evidence in humans is mixed. The morphologic and behavioral changes observed across many species predicted that deficits should be seen in humans, but identifying a phenotype of injury in children has been challenging. It is increasingly clear that in children, a brief or single early anesthetic exposure is not associated with deficits in a range of neurodevelopmental outcomes including broad measures of intelligence. Deficits in other domains including behavior, however, are more consistently reported in humans and also reflect findings from nonhuman primates. The possibility that behavioral deficits are a phenotype, as well as the entire concept of anesthetic neurotoxicity in children, remains a source of intense debate. The purpose of this report is to describe consensus and disagreement among experts, summarize preclinical and clinical evidence, suggest pathways for future clinical research, and compare studies of anesthetic agents to other suspected neurotoxins.

No abstract

No abstract

In 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) into its initial certification examination system. Previously, the ABA’s staged examination system consisted of 2 written examinations (the BASIC and ADVANCED examinations) and the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The OSCE and the existing SOE are now 2 separate components of the APPLIED Examination. This report presents the results of the first-year OSCE administration. A total of 1410 candidates took both the OSCE and the SOE in 2018. Candidate performance approximated a normal distribution for both the OSCE and the SOE, and was not associated with the timing of the examination, including day of the week, morning versus afternoon session, and order of the OSCE and the SOE. Practice-based Learning and Improvement was the most difficult station, while Application of Ultrasonography was the least difficult. The correlation coefficient between SOE and OSCE scores was 0.35 ([95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.30–0.39]; P < .001). Scores for the written ADVANCED Examination were modestly correlated with scores for the SOE (r = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.25–0.34]; P < .001) and the OSCE (r = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10–0.20]; P < .001). Most of the candidates who failed the SOE passed the OSCE, and most of the candidates who failed the OSCE passed the SOE. Of the 1410 candidates, 77 (5.5%) failed the OSCE, 155 (11.0%) failed the SOE, and 25 (1.8%) failed both. Thus, 207 (14.7%) failed at least 1 component of the APPLIED Examination. Adding an OSCE to a board certification examination system is feasible. Preliminary evidence indicates that the OSCE measures aspects of candidate abilities distinct from those measured by other examinations used for initial board certification.

Background and objectivesWhile there are several published recommendations and guidelines for trainees undertaking subspecialty Fellowships in regional anesthesia, a similar document describing a core regional anesthesia curriculum for non-fellowship trainees is less well defined. We aimed to produce an international consensus for the training and teaching of regional anesthesia that is applicable for the majority of worldwide anesthesiologists.MethodsThis anonymous, electronic Delphi study was conducted over two rounds and distributed to current and immediate past (within 5 years) directors of regional anesthesia training worldwide. The steering committee formulated an initial list of items covering nerve block techniques, learning objectives and skills assessment and volume of practice, relevant to a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Participants scored these items in order of importance using a 10-point Likert scale, with free-text feedback. Strong consensus items were defined as highest importance (score ≥8) by ≥70% of all participants.Results469 participants/586 invitations (80.0% response) scored in round 1, and 402/469 participants (85.7% response) scored in round 2. Participants represented 66 countries. Strong consensus was reached for 8 core peripheral and neuraxial blocks and 17 items describing learning objectives and skills assessment. Volume of practice for peripheral blocks was uniformly 16–20 blocks per anatomical region, while ≥50 neuraxial blocks were considered minimum.ConclusionsThis international consensus study provides specific information for designing a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Implementation of a standardized curriculum has benefits for patient care through improving quality of training and quality of nerve blocks.