BackgroundEvidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis: randomized controlled and observational studies investigating the impact of PNB utilization on major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, neurologic, infectious, and bleeding complications.Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were queried from 1946 to August 4, 2020.The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality and for the development of recommendations.ResultsAnalysis of 122 studies revealed that PNB use (compared with no use) was associated with lower ORs for (OR with 95% CIs) for numerous complications (total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), respectively): cognitive dysfunction (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53/OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80), respiratory failure (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74/OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75), cardiac complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93/OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), surgical site infections (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64/OR 0.86 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), thromboembolism (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96/OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and blood transfusion (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86/OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92).ConclusionsBased on the current body of evidence, the consensus group recommends PNB use in THA/TKA for improved outcomes.Recommendation: PNB use is recommended for patients undergoing THA and TKA except when contraindications preclude their use. Furthermore, the alignment of provider skills and practice location resources needs to be ensured. Evidence level: moderate; recommendation: strong.

Liposomal bupivacaine at the surgical site does appear to reduce postoperative pain compared to placebo, however, at present the limited evidence does not demonstrate superiority to bupivacaine hydrochloride. There were no reported drug-related serious adverse events and no study withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events. Overall due to the low quality and volume of evidence our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and the true effect may be substantially different from our estimate.

Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain (Review)

Background Postoperative pain remains a significant issue with poor perioperative pain management associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Liposomal bupivacaine is an analgesic consisting of bupivacaine hydrochloride encapsulated within multiple, nonconcentric lipid bi-layers offering a novel method of sustained release. Objectives To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain. Search methods We identified randomised trials of liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (

We reviewed the literature on management of general and regional anaesthesia in pregnant women with anticipated airway difficulty. We identified 138 publications comprising 158 cases; these either described equipment or techniques for the provision of general anaesthesia, or the management of women with regional analgesia or anaesthesia, with the aim of avoiding general anaesthesia. Most of the former group described women requiring caesarean section alone, or in combination with other surgery, which was sometimes airwayrelated. Management techniques were largely similar to those in non-obstetric patients requiring surgery who have airway difficulties, although suggested differences related to physiological changes of pregnancy and avoidance of nasal intubation. In the reports discussing regional anaesthesia, consideration was often given to the possible requirement for urgent out-of-hours anaesthetic intervention, and the predicted difficulty of management of general anaesthesia should it be required. In a number of reported cases, multidisciplinary planning led to the conclusion that elective caesarean section should be performed in order to avoid emergency airway management. Based on this literature review, we advise antenatal planning that includes: assessment of the patient's clinical characteristics; consideration of the equipment and personnel available to provide safe airway management out-of-hours; and elective caesarean section should these be lacking. If general anaesthesia is required, a risk assessment must be made as to the probability of safe airway management after the induction of anaesthesia, and awake tracheal intubation should be used if this cannot be assured. Decision aids are provided to illustrate these points. Online appendices include a comprehensive compendium of case reports on the management of a number of rare syndromes and airway conditions.

Summary We conducted an observational study of serious airway complications, using similar methods to the fourth UK National Audit Project (NAP4) over a period of 1 year across four hospitals in one region in the UK. We also conducted an activity survey over a week, using NAP4 methods to yield an estimate for relevant denominators to help interpret the primary data. There were 17 serious airway complications, defined as: failed airway management leading to cancellation of surgery (eight); airway management in recovery (five); unplanned intensive care admission (three); and unplanned emergency front of neck access (one). There were no reports of death or brain damage. This was an estimate of 0.028% (1 in 3600) complications using the denominator of 61,000 general anaesthetics per year in the region. Complications in patients with ‘predicted easy’ airways were rare (approximately 1 in 14,200), but 45 times more common in those with ‘predicted difficult’ airways (approximately 1 in 315). Airway management in both groups was similar (induction of anaesthesia followed by supraglottic airway or tracheal tube). Use of awake/sedation intubation, videolaryngoscopy and high‐flow nasal oxygenation were uncommon even in the predicted difficult airway patients (in 2.7%, 32.4% and 9.5% of patients, respectively). We conclude that the incidence of serious airway complications is at least as high as it was during NAP4. Despite airway prediction being used, this is not informing subsequent management.

Throat packs are commonly inserted by anaesthetists after induction of anaesthesia for dental, maxillofacial, nasal or upper airway surgery. However, the evidence supporting this practice as routine is unclear, especially in the light of accidentally retained throat packs which constitute 'Never Events' as defined by NHS England. On behalf of three relevant national organisations, we therefore conducted a systematic review and literature search to assess the evidence base for benefit, and also the extent and severity of complications associated with throat pack use. Other than descriptions of how to insert throat packs in many standard texts, we could find no study that sought to assess the benefit of their insertion by anaesthetists. Instead, there were many reports of minor and major complications (the latter including serious postoperative airway obstruction and at least one death), and many descriptions of how to avoid complications. As a result of these findings, the three national organisations no longer recommend the routine insertion of throat packs by anaesthetists but advise caution and careful consideration. Two protocols for pack insertion are presented, should their use be judged necessary.

Cricoid pressure (CP) was introduced into anaesthetic practice in the 1960s and has become the standard of care for patients at risk of aspiration during induction. However, the evidence supporting the widespread use of CP to prevent aspiration remains unconvincing. Equally, there is no robust evidence to suggest that CP causes harm, and as such, CP has become an established technique because of a mixture of anecdotal evidence and expert opinion. The future of CP lies in the answer to the question as to whether it is actually effective in preventing regurgitation or whether it is an unnecessary hazard.