Niesen, Adam D.

Objective In this case report, we discuss the rare manifestation of prolonged neuromuscular blockade in a patient with history of small cell lung cancer and undiagnosed Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS) who had previously received succinylcholine for general anesthesia without incident but subsequently exhibited prolonged neuromuscular blockade during a laparoscopic procedure. We aimed to emphasize the importance of reversal agent safety and precision as well as vigilant perioperative and postoperative care. Methods We used the patient's electronic medical record, direct patient care experiences, and comprehensive literature review for this case report. Results Sugammadex was administered with mild improvement. Suspecting undiagnosed LEMS, neostigmine was administered, yielding satisfactory muscle strength and successful extubation. In retrospect, the patient reported history of weakness when lifting weights that improved upon exertion. Conclusions Sugammadex is an efficient and effective agent for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. However, proper monitoring of the depth and recovery of blockade is imperative to when using sugammadex with optimal safety and precision in all patients. Perioperative care teams must remain vigilant with a high index of suspicion for neuromuscular junction pathology to properly plan perioperative care for patients at risk, especially those with small cell lung cancer who may have undiagnosed LEMS.

AbstractScapulothoracic fixation surgery is a surgical intervention used for symptom relief in patients who suffer from scapular dysfunction. To date, there are few reports on the use of regional anesthesia for pain control in patients undergoing this procedure. The nerve supply of the scapula and surrounding tissues is complex and arises from both cervical and thoracic nerve roots. We suggest the use of a combined technique for perioperative pain control in patients undergoing scapulothoracic surgery. After a review of the relevant anatomy, we present four cases using combined regional techniques for postoperative pain control. The techniques utilized include thoracic paravertebral blocks with shoulder blockade, resulting in satisfactory pain control.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesOptimizing perioperative analgesia for patients undergoing major lower‐extremity amputation remains a considerable challenge. The utility of liposomal bupivacaine as a component of peripheral nerve blockade for lower‐extremity amputation is unknown.MethodsWe conducted an observational study comparing three different perioperative analgesic techniques for adults undergoing major lower‐extremity amputation under general anesthesia between 2012 and 2017 at an academic medical center: (1) no regional anesthesia, (2) peripheral nerve blockade with standard bupivacaine, and (3) peripheral nerve blockade with a mixture of standard and liposomal bupivacaine. The primary outcome of cumulative opioid oral morphine milligram equivalent utilization in the first 72 hours postoperatively was compared across groups utilizing multivariable linear regression.ResultsA total of 631 unique anesthetics were included for 578 unique patients, including 416 (66%) without regional anesthesia, 131 (21%) with peripheral nerve blockade with a mixture of standard and liposomal bupivacaine, and 84 (13%) with peripheral nerve blockade with standard bupivacaine alone. Cumulative morphine equivalents were lower in those receiving peripheral nerve blockade with combined standard and liposomal bupivacaine compared with those not receiving regional anesthesia (multiplicative increase 0.67; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; P = 0.007). There were no significant differences in opioid utilization between peripheral nerve blockade groups (P = 0.59).ConclusionsPeripheral nerve blockade is associated with reduced opioid requirements after lower‐extremity amputation compared with general anesthesia alone. However, the incorporation of liposomal bupivacaine is not significantly different to blockade employing only standard bupivacaine.

Background and objectives Thoracic paravertebral blockade is often used as an anesthetic and/or analgesic technique for breast surgery. With ultrasound guidance, the rate of complications is speculated to be lower than when using landmark-based techniques. This investigation aimed to quantify the incidence of pleural puncture and pneumothorax following non-continuous ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral blockade for breast surgery. Methods Patients who received thoracic paravertebral blockade for breast surgery were identified by retrospective query of our institution’s electronic database over a 5-year period. Data collected included patient demographics, level of block, type and volume of local anesthetic, occurrence of pleural puncture, occurrence of pneumothorax, evidence of local anesthetic toxicity, and patient vital signs. The incidence of block complications, including pleural puncture, pneumothorax, and local anesthetic toxicity, were ascertained. Results 529 patients underwent 2163 thoracic paravertebral injections. Zero pleural punctures were identified during block performance; however, two patients were found to have a pneumothorax on postoperative chest X-ray (3.6 per 1000 surgeries, 95% CI 0.5 to 13.6; 0.9 per 1000 levels blocked, 95% CI 0.1 to 3.3). There were no cases of local anesthetic systemic toxicity or associated lipid emulsion therapy administration. Conclusions Pneumothorax following non-continuous ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral block using a parasagittal approach is an uncommon occurrence, with a similar rate to pneumothorax following breast surgery alone.

Abstract Background Intrathecal opioids are routinely administered during spinal anesthesia for postcesarean analgesia. The effectiveness of intrathecal morphine for postcesarean analgesia is well established, and the use of intrathecal hydromorphone is growing. No prospective studies have compared the effectiveness of equipotent doses of intrathecal morphine versus intrathecal hydromorphone as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen for postcesarean analgesia. The authors hypothesized that intrathecal morphine would result in superior analgesia compared with intrathecal hydromorphone 24 h after delivery. Methods In this single-center, double-blinded, randomized trial, 138 parturients undergoing scheduled cesarean delivery were randomized to receive 150 µg of intrathecal morphine or 75 µg of intrathecal hydromorphone as part of a primary spinal anesthetic and multimodal analgesic regimen; 134 parturients were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the numerical rating scale score for pain with movement 24 h after delivery. Static and dynamic pain scores, nausea, pruritus, degree of sedation, and patient satisfaction were assessed every 6 h for 36 h postpartum. Total opioid consumption was recorded. Results There was no significant difference in pain scores with movement at 24 h (intrathecal hydromorphone median [25th, 75th] 4 [3, 5] and intrathecal morphine 3 [2, 4.5]) or at any time point (estimated difference, 0.5; 95% CI, 0 to 1; P = 0.139). Opioid received in the first 24 h did not differ between groups (median [25th, 75th] oral morphine milligram equivalents for intrathecal hydromorphone 30 [7.5, 45.06] vs. intrathecal morphine 22.5 [14.0, 37.5], P = 0.769). From Kaplan–Meier analysis, the median time to first opioid request was 5.4 h for hydromorphone and 12.1 h for morphine (log-rank test P = 0.200). Conclusions Although the hypothesis was that intrathecal morphine would provide superior analgesia to intrathecal hydromorphone, the results did not confirm this. At the doses studied, both intrathecal morphine and intrathecal hydromorphone provide effective postcesarean analgesia when combined with a multimodal analgesia regimen. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Manually delivered intermittent bolus (MIB) and programmable intermittent bolus (PIB), alternatives to continuous infusion (CI), involve administering a set volume of solution at a set interval of time. The benefits of intermittent bolus techniques in truncal and peripheral nerve blockade (TPNB) are unclear, and studies have largely demonstrated conflicting results. Using MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library, we conducted an evidenced-based review of published randomized controlled trials comparing intermittent bolus and CI methods in TPNB. In total, 13 randomized controlled trials were identified and evaluated. Outcomes data addressed in these studies included assessments of pain, opioid and local anesthetic consumption, patient satisfaction, adverse events, and physical therapy metrics. The overall quality of current evidence was found to be low given the small sample sizes, heterogeneity of data, and the variations in intermittent bolus techniques between studies. At this time, we found limited supportive data to endorse MIB or PIB over CI in TPNB. While unable to provide data-driven conclusions for local anesthetic delivery methods at this time, we propose that future studies and quantitative analysis between techniques should be on an anatomic, site-specific basis, with greater focus on evaluation of opioid use, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and rehabilitative metrics.

Objectives Local anesthetic injection into the interspace between the popliteal artery and the posterior capsule of the knee (IPACK) has the potential to provide motor‐sparing analgesia to the posterior knee after total knee arthroplasty. The primary objective of this cadaveric study was to evaluate injectate spread to relevant anatomic structures with IPACK injection. Methods After receipt of Institutional Review Board Biospecimen Subcommittee approval, IPACK injection was performed on fresh‐frozen cadavers. The popliteal fossa in each specimen was dissected and examined for injectate spread. Results Ten fresh‐frozen cadaver knees were included in the study. Injectate was observed to spread in the popliteal fossa at a mean ± SD of 6.1 ± 0.7 cm in the medial‐lateral dimension and 10.1 ± 3.2 cm in the proximal‐distal dimension. No injectate was noted to be in contact with the proximal segment of the sciatic nerve, but 3 specimens showed injectate spread to the tibial nerve. In 3 specimens, the injectate showed possible contact with the common peroneal nerve. The middle genicular artery was consistently surrounded by injectate. Conclusions This cadaver study of IPACK injection demonstrated spread throughout the popliteal fossa without proximal sciatic involvement. However, the potential for injectate to spread to the tibial or common peroneal nerve was demonstrated. Consistent surrounding of the middle genicular artery with injectate suggests a potential mechanism of analgesia for the IPACK block, due to the predictable relationship between articular sensory nerves and this artery. Further study is needed to determine the ideal site of IPACK injection.

ObjectivesTo identify any anatomic barriers to local anesthetic spread between the sciatic nerve (SN) and the posterior femoral cutaneous nerve (PFCN) at the level of the infragluteal crease and to describe a potential technique for an ultrasound (US)‐guided subgluteal PFCN block in a cadaveric model.MethodsBilateral US‐guided subgluteal injections of a colored latex solution were performed around the SN (15 mL) and PFCN (10 mL) in 4 unembalmed cadavers, for a total of 8 cadaver thighs. The specimens were dissected after latex polymerization to observe the spread of the latex solutions.ResultsWith US guidance, the PFCN was visualized deep to the gluteus maximus and slightly superficial or lateral to the SN at the level of the infragluteal crease. The SN and PFCN were found on dissection to be coated with their respective colored latex in all 8 thighs. The SN and PFCN were consistently separated by the deep investing muscular fascia of the thigh, with only 2 thighs showing substantial mixing of latex injectates.ConclusionsThe deep investing muscular fascia of the thigh appears to impede the spread of injectate between the SN and PFCN in a most unembalmed cadaver specimens. A US‐guided subgluteal PFCN blockade may be a feasible technique to complement an SN block when complete anesthesia of the posterior thigh is required.