Palettas, Marilly

BACKGROUND: Recent years have seen considerable growth and significant changes in the anesthesiology residency application process. Although the National Residency Match Program provides data on attributes of successfully matching applicants, it does not provide detailed characteristics of applicants’ research portfolio. This single-program retrospective analysis aims to characterize granular aspects of applicant research experiences to determine whether research involvement is linked to higher odds of matching. METHODS: Applications from interviewed United States allopathic (US-MD) and osteopathic (US-DO) applicants at a single anesthesiology residency program were analyzed for research experience. The primary outcome assessed was the association of any research experience with odds of ranked-to-match and the association of specific types of research experience with ranked-to-match. Secondary outcomes included the association of medical degree type (US-MD vs US-DO) or affiliation of medical school with an anesthesiology residency program to the number of research experiences, and the association of research experiences with the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score type (Pass/Fail vs Scored). RESULTS: Applicants with at least one research experience were more likely to be ranked-to-match than applicants without research experience (odds ratio [OR]: 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI], [1.55–3.02], P < .001). Similar odds were demonstrated for applicants with at least one peer-reviewed publication compared to no peer-reviewed publications (OR: 2.25, 95% CI, [1.79–2.82], P < .001), and at least one anesthesiology-related research experience compared to no anesthesiology-related research experience (OR: 1.76, 95% CI, [1.36–2.26], P < .001. Applicants from US-MD schools were more likely to have research experience than those from US-DO schools ( P < .001); applicants from a medical school affiliated with an anesthesiology residency were more likely to have research experience than applicants from unaffiliated medical schools ( P < .001); and applicants with Pass/Fail USMLE Step 1 examinations were more likely than their Scored counterparts to report at least one research experience ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Applicant research is associated with greater odds of being ranked-to-match in anesthesiology residency. Applicants from US-MD schools and schools affiliated with anesthesiology residency programs have significantly greater rates of reporting at least one research experience. There is a trend toward a higher incidence of reporting at least one research experience with the change of USMLE Step 1 policy toward a Pass/Fail examination.

Background: Both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone have been proposed as effective adjuncts that prolong the duration of peripheral nerve blocks. The authors sought to explore whether combining systemic with perineural dexamethasone yields any additive or synergistic effect on the characteristics and analgesic effects of peripheral nerve blocks. Methods: Adult patients having distal radius open reduction and internal fixation and/or carpometacarpal arthroplasty under supraclavicular block were randomized to intravenous dexamethasone, a combination of perineural plus intravenous dexamethasone, or no dexamethasone (control). Sensory block duration was set as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included motor block duration; postoperative rebound pain scores as well as worst pain at 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, and 48 h; opioid consumption at 0 to 24 and 25 to 48 h; incidence of nausea/vomiting; and presence of burning sensation in the blocked limb at 24 and 48 h. The null hypothesis was lack of difference in sensory block duration between the three groups. Results: A total of 104 patients were included in the analysis (intravenous dexamethasone, 37; intravenous plus perineural dexamethasone, 34; control, 33). Compared to intravenous dexamethasone alone, adding perineural dexamethasone did not yield any incremental benefits in any of the outcomes examined. The mean ± SD of sensory block duration was 21.3 ± 7.3 h in the intravenous dexamethasone group, 20.6 ± 6.1 h in the perineural plus intravenous group, and 16.8 ± 6.8 h in the control group. The mean difference (95% CI) of sensory block duration was significantly prolonged by 4.5 h (95% CI, 1.3 to 7.7; P = 0.006) in the intravenous dexamethasone group and 3.8 h (95% CI, 0.8 to 6.8; P = 0.015) in the perineural plus intravenous dexamethasone group compared to control; however, no difference was observed when the two dexamethasone groups were compared to each other (0.7 h [95% CI, –2.5 to 3.9]; P = 0.670). Compared to control, both intravenous and intravenous plus perineural dexamethasone similarly reduced 24-h pain scores and opioid consumption and decreased incidence of rebound pain. Conclusions: The authors’ findings suggest that intravenous dexamethasone alone is sufficient to improve analgesic outcomes for patients receiving supraclavicular block for upper extremity surgery. Combining the intravenous and perineural dexamethasone routes does not yield an additive or synergistic effect on the characteristics and analgesic effects of supraclavicular block.

Objective Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an emerging neuromodulation modality, yet there remains limited data highlighting its long-term effectiveness. The objective of this study was to report real-world data on pain intensity and opioid consumption after temporary and permanent PNS for chronic pain up to 24 months postimplantation. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on all patients who received PNS implants at a multi-centered enterprise between January 1, 2014 and February 24, 2022. The two co-primary outcomes were: (1) change in pain intensity (11-point Numerical Rating Scale) from baseline to 12 months postimplant; and (2) comparison of the change in pain intensity between temporary and permanent PNS cohorts 12 months postimplant. Results 126 patients were included in this analysis. Pain intensity significantly decreased 12 months postimplant in the overall cohort (mean difference (MD) −3.0 (95% CI −3.5 to −2.4), p<0.0001). No significant difference in this reduction was identified between temporary and permanent PNS cohorts (MD 0.0 (95% CI −1.1 to 1.0), p=1.00) 12 months postimplantation. Pain intensity significantly decreased in the overall, temporary, and permanent cohorts at all secondary time points (3, 6, and 24 months). No change in daily opioid consumption was observed at 6 and 12 months postimplant in the overall cohort. Conclusion This study found that both temporary and permanent PNS may be effective for reducing pain intensity in patients with chronic pain up to 24 months postimplantation, although no changes in opioid consumption were observed. The decrease in pain intensity was comparable between patients receiving temporary versus permanent implants, highlighting that temporary PNS may achieve long-lasting clinical benefits. However, given the substantial loss to follow-up, further large-scale studies are needed to solidify conclusions about the efficacy of PNS.