Citations

Background Outcome selection in regional anesthesia and acute pain research is inconsistent, often lacking patient-centered priorities and validated instruments. We aimed to prioritize key outcomes and propose suitable measurement tools to improve the quality, consistency, and relevance of regional anesthesia research. Methods We conducted a multiround Delphi process, including two electronic voting rounds, a multiday in-person meeting, and a patient panel. Experts and patients evaluated existing and proposed outcomes for importance, validity, and relevance. Outcomes reaching ≥70% agreement were prioritized, and appropriate measurement instruments were identified. Results Thirty-two experts and three patients participated. Across three Delphi rounds, 10 outcomes were prioritized for future regional anesthesia research: seven efficacy outcomes (pain scores; opioid consumption; Brief Pain Inventory; functional outcomes; cognitive function; length of stay; block duration); two multidimensional outcomes (quality of recovery and development of a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument); one safety outcome (chronic postsurgical pain). Patients prioritized cognitive recovery, function, chronic pain, and pain scores. Conclusions This consensus-based, patient-centered framework defines the core priorities for future regional anesthesia and acute pain research. Future work should focus on developing and validating a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument, refining multidimensional measures such as functional recovery, cognitive outcomes, and the Brief Pain Inventory, and standardizing the reporting of chronic pain and opioid-related outcomes. Adoption of these priorities will enhance methodological consistency, comparability, and patient relevance in future clinical trials.

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 and objectives Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. Methods Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. Conclusion By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.

Background There is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques. Methods We conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement. Results Sixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified. Conclusions Harmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.