Seamans, David P.

Background and objectives Few cadaveric studies have evaluated the dye spread with superficial parasternal intercostal plane (SPIP) blocks. In this study, we examined the dye spread of an ultrasound-guided SPIP block in a human cadaveric model with single and double injection techniques. Methods Seven single and four double ultrasound-guided SPIP blocks were performed in seven unembalmed human cadavers using an in-plane approach with the transducer oriented parasagitally 1 cm lateral to the sternum. For the single SPIP, 20 mL of 0.166% methylene blue was injected in the second or third intercostal space into the plane between the Pec major muscle and internal intercostal muscles. For the double SPIP, 10 mL of 0.166% methylene blue was injected in the SPIP at one intercostal space with an additional 10 mL injected in the SPIP two intercostal spaces caudally. The extent of dye spread was documented. Results For all SPIP injections, there was consistent mediolateral spread from the sternum to the mid-clavicular line, with many extending laterally to the anterior axillary line. There was craniocaudal spread to a median of 2 intercostal muscles with a single SPIP and 3 intercostal muscles with a double SPIP. There was a median spread to 1 intercostal nerve for the single SPIP and 1.5 intercostal nerves with the double SPIP. Conclusions The SPIP block demonstrated limited spread in this cadaver study. A single injection of this block may be of limited value and multiple SPIP injections may be needed to have adequate spread for anterior thoracic procedures.

Abstract Background Pharmacogenomics is an emerging and affordable tool that may improve postoperative pain control. One challenge to successful pain control is the large interindividual variability among analgesics in their efficacy and adverse drug events. Whether preoperative pharmacogenomic testing is worthwhile for patients undergoing TKA is unclear. Questions/purposes (1) Are the results of preoperative pharmacogenetic testing associated with lower postoperative pain scores as measured by the Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS)? (2) Do the results of preoperative pharmacogenomic testing lead to less total opioids given? (3) Do the results of preoperative pharmacogenomic testing lead to changes in opioid prescribing patterns? Methods Participants of this randomized trial were enrolled from September 2018 through December 2021 if they were aged 18 to 80 years and were undergoing primary TKA under general anesthesia. Patients were excluded if they had chronic kidney disease, a history of chronic pain or narcotic use before surgery, or if they were undergoing robotic surgery. Preoperatively, patients completed pharmacogenomic testing (RightMed, OneOME) and a questionnaire and were randomly assigned to the experimental group or control group. Of 99 patients screened, 23 were excluded, one before randomization; 11 allocated patients in each group did not receive their allocated interventions for reasons such as surgery canceled, patients ultimately undergoing spinal anesthesia, and change in surgery plan. Another four patients in each group were excluded from the analysis because they were missing an OBAS report. This left 30 patients for analysis in the control group and 38 patients in the experimental group. The control and experimental groups were similar in age, gender, and race. Pharmacogenomic test results for patients in the experimental group were reviewed before surgery by a pharmacist, who recommended perioperative medications to the clinical team. A pharmacist also assessed for clinically relevant drug-gene interactions and recommended drug and dose selection according to guidelines from the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium for each patient enrolled in the study. Patients were unaware of their pharmacogenomic results. Pharmacogenomic test results for patients in the control group were not reviewed before surgery; instead, standard perioperative medications were administered in adherence to our institutional care pathways. The OBAS (maximum 28 points) was the primary outcome measure, recorded 24 hours postoperatively. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the mean OBAS between groups. Secondary measures were the mean 24-hour pain score, total morphine milligram equivalent, and frequency of opioid use. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for pain with a VAS (range 0 to 10). Opioid use was recorded preoperatively, intraoperatively, in the postanesthesia care unit, and 24 hours after discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Changes in perioperative opioid use based on pharmacogenomic testing were recorded, as were changes in prescription patterns for postoperative pain control. Preoperative characteristics were also compared between patients with and without various phenotypes ascertained from pharmacogenomic test results. Results The mean OBAS did not differ between groups (mean ± SD 4.7 ± 3.7 in the control group versus 4.2 ± 2.8 in the experimental group, mean difference 0.5 [95% CI -1.1 to 2.1]; p = 0.55). Total opioids given did not differ between groups or at any single perioperative timepoint (preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative). We found no difference in opioid prescribing pattern. After adjusting for multiple comparisons, no difference was observed between the treatment and control groups in tramadol use (41% versus 71%, proportion difference 0.29 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.53]; nominal p = 0.02; adjusted p > 0.99). Conclusion Routine use of pharmacogenomic testing for patients undergoing TKA did not lead to better pain control or decreased opioid consumption. Future studies might focus on at-risk populations, such as patients with chronic pain or those undergoing complex, painful surgical procedures, to test whether pharmacogenomic results might be beneficial in certain circumstances. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.

AbstractIntroductionAdverse reactions to pain medication and pain can delay discharge after outpatient knee arthroplasty (TKA). Pharmacogenomics is an emerging tool that might help reduce adverse events by tailoring medication use based on known genetic variations in the CYP genes determining drug metabolism. This study was undertaken to evaluate whether pre-operative pharmacogenomic testing could optimize peri-operative pain management in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsThis prospective, randomized study was performed in adults undergoing primary TKA. Patients in the experimental group underwent pre-operative pharmacogenomic evaluation and medication adjustments. Medications were not optimized for control patients. The Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS) at 24 hours post-op was the primary outcome. Postoperative pain scores (VAS scale), total opioid use, time in recovery, and time to discharge were also compared.Results76 patients enrolled. 93% of patients had a poor-intermediate phenotype for at least one of four CYP genes. OBAS did not differ significantly between the two groups (4.2 control vs. 4.7 experimental; 95% CI −1.1 to 2.1) and was below the minimum clinically important difference of 2.0 points. Furthermore, there were no differences in any OBAS subscale including pain, satisfaction, or nausea. There were no differences in time in the recovery area or to discharge from hospital, or narcotic use.ConclusionsDespite many patients having a poor-intermediate phenotype for a CYP gene, pharmacogenomic testing prior to TKA and medication adjustment did not improve anesthesia or pain management outcomes, time to discharge or mean total opioid use after surgery.

Introduction The superficial and deep parasternal intercostal plane (DPIP) blocks are two new blocks for thoracic pain. There are limited cadaveric studies evaluating the dye spread with these blocks. In this study, we examined the dye spread of an ultrasound-guided DPIP block in a human cadaveric model. Methods Five ultrasound-guided DPIP blocks were performed in four unembalmed human cadavers using an in-plane approach with a linear transducer oriented in a transverse plane adjacent to the sternum. Twenty milliliters of 0.1% methylene blue were injected between ribs 3 and 4 into the plane deep to the internal intercostal muscles and superficial to the transversus thoracis muscle layer. The chest muscles were dissected, and the extent of dye spread was documented in both cephalocaudal and mediolateral directions. Results The transversus thoracis muscle slips were stained in all cadavers from 4 to 6 levels. Intercostal nerves were dyed in all specimens. Four levels of intercostal nerves were dyed in each specimen with variability in number of levels stained above and below the level of the injection. Conclusions The DPIP block spreads along the tissue plane above the transversus thoracis muscles to multiple levels to dye the intercostal nerves in this cadaver study. This block may be of clinical value for analgesia in anterior thoracic surgical procedures.

Background and objectives Studies show variable spread with thoracic erector spinae plane (ESP) injections. Injection sites vary from lateral end of the transverse process (TP) to 3 cm from the spinous process, with many not describing the precise site of injection. This human cadaveric study examined dye spread of ultrasound-guided thoracic ESP block at two needle locations. Methods Ultrasound-guided ESP blocks were performed on unembalmed cadavers. Methylene blue (20 mL, 0.1%) was injected in the ESP at the medial TP at level T5 (medial transverse process injection (MED), n=7) and the lateral end of the TP between T4 and T5 (injection between transverse processes (BTWN), n=7). The back muscles were dissected, and the cephalocaudal and medial-lateral dye spread documented. Results Dye spread cephalocaudally from C4-T12 in the MED group and C5-T11 in the BTWN group, and laterally to the iliocostalis muscle in five MED injections and all BTWN injections. One MED injection reached serratus anterior. Dorsal rami were dyed in five MED and all BTWN injections. Dye spread to the dorsal root ganglion and dorsal root in most injections, though more extensively in the BTWN group. The ventral root was dyed in 4 MED and 6 BTWN injections. Epidural spread in BTWN injections ranged from 3 to 12 levels (median: 5 levels), with contralateral spread in two cases and intrathecal spread in five injections. Epidural spread in MED injections was less extensive (median (range): 1 (0–3) levels); two MED injections did not enter the epidural space. Conclusion An ESP injection administered between TPs exhibits more extensive spread than a medial TP injection in a human cadaveric model.

Background and objectives The costoclavicular brachial plexus block is performed deep and posterior to the midpoint of the clavicle. There are limited data evaluating the spread of the costoclavicular brachial plexus block. We performed a cadaveric study to evaluate the spread of injectate after a costoclavicular brachial plexus block. Methods Five ultrasound-guided costoclavicular block injections were performed with 20 mL of 0.1% methylene blue. The brachial plexus and its branches were dissected from the level of C4 to the lower axilla. The extent of dye spread was recorded including spread to the phrenic nerve, suprascapular nerve, roots, trunks, divisions, cords and terminal branches of the brachial plexus. Results The dye extended cephalad to the level of the cricoid cartilage in two of the five injections; three injections had dye extending 0.75 cm, 1.5 cm and 2 cm caudad to the level of the cricoid cartilage, respectively. The C7, C8 and T1 nerve roots were stained in all injections. The dye did not extend cephalad to the C5 and C6 nerve roots. All trunks, cords and divisions of the brachial plexus were stained, as was the suprascapular nerve. There was no spread of dye to the phrenic nerve in any of the specimens. Conclusions This cadaveric study demonstrates that ultrasound-guided injection in the costoclavicular space spreads cephalad to the brachial plexus in the supraclavicular space, consistently reaching the suprascapular nerve and all trunks and cords of the brachial plexus, while sparing the phrenic nerve.

Background and objectives The erector spinae plane (ESP) block is a relatively new interfascial block technique. Previous cadaveric studies have shown extensive cephalocaudal spread with a single ESP injection at the thoracic level. However, little data exist for lumbar ESP block. The objective of this study was to examine the anatomical spread of dye following an ultrasound-guided lumbar ESP block in a human cadaveric model. Methods An ultrasound-guided ESP block was performed in unembalmed human cadavers using an in-plane approach with a curvilinear transducer oriented longitudinally. 20 mL of 0.166% methylene blue was injected into the plane between the distal end of the L4 transverse process and erector spinae muscle bilaterally in four specimens and unilaterally in one specimen (nine ESP blocks in total). The superficial and deep back muscles were dissected, and the extent of dye spread was documented in both cephalocaudal and medial–lateral directions. Results There was cephalocaudal spread from L3 to L5 in all specimens with extension to L2 in four specimens. Medial–lateral spread was documented from the multifidus muscle to the lateral edge of the thoracolumbar fascia. There was extensive dye in and around the erector spinae musculature and spread to the dorsal rami in all specimens. There was no dye spread anteriorly into the dorsal root ganglion, ventral rami, or paravertebral space. Conclusions A lumbar ESP injection has limited craniocaudal spread compared with injection in the thoracic region. It has consistent spread to dorsal rami, but no anterior spread to ventral rami or paravertebral space.

AbstractObjectivesPatient satisfaction is tied to outcome, but there is scant literature on the relationship of patient perceived outcome and attributes of the pain clinic visit, including the patient interaction with the pain management specialist. The primary purpose of this study is to identify attributes of the patient–provider interaction most strongly associated with patient perceived outcome of their clinic visit. The secondary aim is to correlate patient perceived outcome with patient self‐rated overall health.MethodsA patient satisfaction survey conducted via phone approximately 3 weeks after the patient's pain clinic visit.ResultsThe response rate was 60.2%; 987 patient surveys collected between 2006 and 2010 were used in the analysis. Four factors were significantly associated with the outcome: (1) Explanations by the physician of the patient's condition and treatment, (2) clear instructions regarding post‐appointment activities, (3) knowing the patient as a person, and (4) the patient's self‐rated health. In terms of the secondary objective, those who answered very good/excellent regarding their self‐rated health had an 87% increased odds of better (very good/excellent) outcome of their pain clinic visit (or 1.87 times the odds of better outcome) compared with those who answered poor/fair/good.ConclusionsOur results suggest that pain physicians may positively impact patient perceived outcomes of clinic visits by explaining the patient's condition and treatment, providing instructions, and taking the time to understand the patient and their values.