The index of suspicion among anesthesiologists, other physicians and nurses taking care of patients with epidural catheters must be increased for this complication; this should shorten the interval from symptoms to treatment and lower the incidence of neurological sequelae.

: The purpose of this update of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) guidelines on the pre-operative evaluation of the adult undergoing noncardiac surgery is to present recommendations based on the available relevant clinical evidence. Well performed randomised studies on the topic are limited and therefore many recommendations rely to a large extent on expert opinion and may need to be adapted specifically to the healthcare systems of individual countries. This article aims to provide an overview of current knowledge on the subject with an assessment of the quality of the evidence in order to allow anaesthesiologists all over Europe to integrate - wherever possible - this knowledge into daily patient care. The Guidelines Committee of the ESA formed a task force comprising members of the previous task force, members of ESA scientific subcommittees and an open call for volunteers was made to all individual active members of the ESA and national societies. Electronic databases were searched from July 2010 (end of the literature search of the previous ESA guidelines on pre-operative evaluation) to May 2016 without language restrictions. A total of 34 066 abtracts were screened from which 2536 were included for further analysis. Relevant systematic reviews with meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional surveys were selected. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the level of evidence and to grade recommendations. The final draft guideline was posted on the ESA website for 4 weeks and the link was sent to all ESA members, individual or national (thus including most European national anaesthesia societies). Comments were collated and the guidelines amended as appropriate. When the final draft was complete, the Guidelines Committee and ESA Board ratified the guidelines.

Anaesthesiology, which includes anaesthesia, perioperative care, intensive care medicine, pain therapy and emergency medicine, has always participated in systematic attempts to improve patient safety. Anaesthesiologists have a unique, cross-specialty opportunity to influence the safety and quality of patient care. Past achievements have allowed our specialty a perception that it has become safe, but there should be no room for complacency when there is more to be done. Increasingly older and sicker patients, more complex surgical interventions, more pressure on throughput, new drugs and devices and simple chance all pose hazards in the work of anaesthesiologists. In response to this increasingly difficult and complex working environment, the European Board of Anaesthesiology (EBA), in cooperation with the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA), has produced a blueprint for patient safety in anaesthesiology. This document, to be known as the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology, was endorsed by these two bodies together with the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA), and the European Patients' Federation (EPF) at the Euroanaesthesia meeting in Helsinki in June 2010. The Declaration represents a shared European view of that which is worthy, achievable, and needed to improve patient safety in anaesthesiology in 2010. The Declaration recommends practical steps that all anaesthesiologists who are not already using them can successfully include in their own clinical practice. In parallel, EBA and ESA have launched a joint patient safety task-force in order to put these recommendations into practice. It is planned to review this Declaration document regularly.

The purpose of these guidelines on the preoperative evaluation of the adult non-cardiac surgery patient is to present recommendations based on available relevant clinical evidence. The ultimate aims of preoperative evaluation are two-fold. First, we aim to identify those patients for whom the perioperative period may constitute an increased risk of morbidity and mortality, aside from the risks associated with the underlying disease. Second, this should help us to design perioperative strategies that aim to reduce additional perioperative risks. Very few well performed randomised studies on the topic are available and many recommendations rely heavily on expert opinion and are adapted specifically to the healthcare systems in individual countries. This report aims to provide an overview of current knowledge on the subject with an assessment of the quality of the evidence in order to allow anaesthetists all over Europe to integrate - wherever possible - this knowledge into daily patient care. The Guidelines Committee of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) formed a task force with members of subcommittees of scientific subcommittees and individual members of the ESA. Electronic databases were searched from the year 2000 until July 2010 without language restrictions. These searches produced 15 425 abstracts. Relevant systematic reviews with meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional surveys were selected. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network grading system was used to assess the level of evidence and to grade recommendations. The final draft guideline was posted on the ESA website for 4 weeks and the link was sent to all ESA members, individual or national (thus including most European national anaesthesia societies). Comments were collated and the guidelines amended as appropriate. When the final draft was complete, the Guidelines Committee and ESA Board ratified the guidelines.

Patient safety is an activity to mitigate preventable patient harm that may occur during the delivery of medical care. The European Board of Anaesthesiology (EBA)/European Union of Medical Specialists had previously published safety recommendations on minimal monitoring and postanaesthesia care, but with the growing public and professional interest it was decided to produce a much more encompassing document. The EBA and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) published a consensus on what needs to be done/achieved for improvement of peri-operative patient safety. During the Euroanaesthesia meeting in Helsinki/Finland in 2010, this vision was presented to anaesthesiologists, patients, industry and others involved in health care as the ‘Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology’. In May/June 2020, ESA and EBA are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology; a good opportunity to look back and forward evaluating what was achieved in the recent 10 years, and what needs to be done in the upcoming years. The Patient Safety and Quality Committee (PSQC) of ESA invited experts in their fields to contribute, and these experts addressed their topic in different ways; there are classical, narrative reviews, more systematic reviews, political statements, personal opinions and also original data presentation. With this publication we hope to further stimulate implementation of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology, as well as initiating relevant research in the future.

The launch of Helsinki Declaration of Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology in 2010 was a major step forward for patient safety initiatives in European and Global anesthesiology. Several steps have been taken in the 4 years that have passed, but the task needs continuous attention to ensure that every patient received the safest possible anesthesiology care.

No abstract

Previous studies have failed to find a significant correlation between the number of dural punctures and the incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH), questioning the hypothesis that leakage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) through the dural tear is the cause of PDPH. We hypothesized that insufficient statistical power of these studies was the cause for this unexpected finding, and re-examined whether repeated dural punctures increase the incidence of PDPH by analyzing prospectively collected data on 8034 spinal anesthetics. Uneventful spinal anesthetics, including a single subarachnoid injection of local anesthetics, occurred in 7865 (97.9%) cases, whereas failed spinal anesthetics requiring repeated dural puncture for a second subarachnoid injection of local anesthetics occurred in 165 (2.1%) cases. The two groups were similar with regard to age, sex, and ASA physical status. We found that repeated dural punctures significantly increased the incidence of PDPH. We conclude that increased risk of PDPH is a disadvantage of performing a second subarachnoid injection of local anesthetics after a failed spinal anesthetic. Moreover, this result suggests that leakage of CSF through the dural tear is the most plausible cause of PDPH.