Neal, Joseph M.

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.

Background Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks. Methods We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research. Conclusions We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.

Background Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery. Methods A 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. Results Analysis 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). Conclusions Based 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.

Introduction In 2016, individual training programs in regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RA/APM) became eligible for accreditation by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), thereby culminating a process that began 15 years earlier. Herein, we review the origins of regional anesthesia training in the USA, the events leading up to accreditation and the current state of the fellowship. Methods We reviewed pertinent literature on the historical aspects of RA/APM in the USA, related subspecialty training and the formation and current state of RA/APM fellowship training programs. Additionally, a survey was distributed to the directors of the 74 RA/APM fellowships that existed as of 1 January 2017 to gather up-to-date, program-specific information. Results The survey yielded a 76% response rate. Mayo Clinic Rochester and Virginia Mason Medical Center likely had the first structured RA/APM fellowships with formalized curriculums and stated objectives, both starting in 1982. Most programs (86%), including ACGME and non-ACGME fellowships, came into existence after the year 2000. Six responding programs have or previously had RA/APM comingled with another subspecialty. Eight current programs originally offered unofficial or part-time fellowships in RA/APM, with fellows also practicing as attending physicians. Discussion The history of RA/APM training in the USA is a tortuous one. It began with short ‘apprenticeships’ under the tutelage of the early proponents of regional anesthesia and continues today with 84 official RA/APM programs and a robust fellowship directors’ group. RA/APM programs teach skills essential to the practice and improvement of anesthesiology as a specialty.

In 2017, JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of the MINT trials, prospective research involving 681 patients, all of whom received exercise therapy for low back pain. Half of the patients were randomized to additionally receive radiofrequency denervation (RFD) treatment. 88% of patients completed the 3-month follow-up, and 77% completed the 12-month follow-up. In this context, RFD provided no added benefit over the baseline of exercise therapy. In 2018, five authors, all experts in pain medicine, published a ‘Daring Discourse’ article in the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (RAPM), criticizing the findings of the MINT trials. Although 3 of the 5 authors of the RAPM ‘Daring Discourse’ article reported in conflict of interest statements—as is appropriate—that they were consultants to corporations that produce RFD equipment, the authors failed to disclose that 4 of 5 are on the editorial board of RAPM and all 5 are current officers in the medical organization that owns RAPM: that is, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Noteworthy, there was no published response from the MINT trial investigators to the Daring Discourse criticisms, either in the aforementioned example or in downstream venues where some of the same Daring Discourse authors continued their widely disseminated criticisms of the JAMA/MINT trials report. We believe that these actions taken by the Daring Discourse authors and RAPM have unfairly tipped the scales in the evaluation and application of RFD treatment of low back pain. In our commentary, we discuss: (1) the challenges associated with using clinical trials to predict clinical efficacy, (2) appropriate and inappropriate uses of postpublication commentary on original research findings, (3) the use of inappropriate commentary (and related means) to alter clinical practice in the presence of contradictory research findings, and (4) potential conflicts of interest related to the authors’ and Journal’s publication of the unopposed MINT trials criticism.