The erector spinae plane (ESP) block is an interfascial block proposed to provide analgesia for chronic thoracic pain. It consists in an injection of local anesthetic in a plane between the transverse process and the erector spinae muscles group. We performed a systematic review of literature following the PRISMA Statement Guidelines. The bibliographic search was conducted on September 2018. We included articles indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Search terms included the following: "erector spinae plane block" OR "ESP block" OR "erector spinae block." We identified 367 studies and after removal of 206 duplicates and exclusion of 18 records we manually searched 140 studies. We identified four randomized controlled trials, but the endpoints were heterogeneous preventing a statistical analysis; we performed then a qualitative review of the literature. Studies showed lower use of opioids and a longer time to first analgesic requirement in the ESP group. In one study, ESP block was found to be as effective as epidural analgesia. ESP block has a wide range of clinical indications. Its mechanism of action is still not thoroughly understood. Only two reports presented complications caused by the block. Although data suggests that ESP block is an easy and safe technique, more studies are needed to assess safety, complications rates and efficacy of this technique. In particular, we need well designed RCTs comparing ESP block to gold standard regional anesthesia technique. Nevertheless, ESP block is already a viable option for anesthesiologists all over the world.

Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a newly described interfascial plane block, and the number of articles on the bilateral application of ESPB is increasing in the literature. In this paper, in addition to analyzing bilateral ESPB cases and studies published so far, we aimed to review the relevant anatomy, describe the mechanism of spread of the injectant, demonstrate varying approaches to ESPB, and summarize case reports and clinical trials, as well as provide current insight on this emerging and popular block. Randomized controlled studies, comparative studies of ESPB versus other methods, and pharmacokinetic studies of bilateral applications must be the next step in clearly understanding bilateral ESPB.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) is a grading system adopted worldwide by anesthesiologists to classify the overall health status of patients. Its importance is demonstrated not only by its routinely use in clinical practice, but also by its deployment in other healthcare-related environments. However, a weak/moderate inter-observer agreement for ASA-PS has been previously shown and, although definitions and clinical examples of each class were provided by ASA, doubts remain on the individual factors influencing the assignment to an ASA-PS class. The aim of this study was to investigate whether and how an anesthesiologist's experience conditions the classification into a specific ASA-PS class. An online survey presenting 8 fictitious patients was administered to a group of Italian anesthesiologists and residents of different experience. Respondents were asked to assign each one of the 8 patients to a specific ASA-PS class. For the comparisons, anesthesiologists were subdivided into 5 classes according to the experience as anesthesiologists. Six hundred one surveys were correctly completed. The highest mean number of correct answers was obtained by residents, and this number decreased progressively with increasing work experience. The lowest value was recorded in the most experienced group (≥ 20 years of experience). Low inter-reliability and experience-dependence of ASA-PS must be taken into account when evaluating a patient, particularly in settings where wide differences in experience are present.

Background: Yearly, a multitude of randomized controlled trials are published, overwhelming clinicians with conflicting information; this data saturation leads to confusion and hinders clinicians’ everyday decision-making. Hence, it is crucial to assess the quality and reliability of the evidence in order to consolidate it. Through this synthesis, clinicians can guarantee that their decisions are informed by solid evidence. Meta-analysis, a statistical technique, can effectively combine data from multiple studies to furnish accurate and dependable evidence for clinical practice and policy decisions. Nonetheless, the reliability of the obtained results depends on the use of high-quality evidence. Main body: Risk of bias is an assessment mandatory while performing a meta-analysis and is used to have an overview of the quality of the studies from which data are extracted. Several tools have been developed and are used to perform the risk of bias assessment. In this statistical round, we will provide an overview of the most used tools for both the randomized (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Jadad) and the nonrandomized (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale) clinical trials. Conclusion: We provided an overview of the most used risk of bias tools used in meta-analysis.

Defined in the last decade, erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is one of the more frequently used interfacial plans, and it has been the most discussed block among the recently defined techniques. Lumbar ESPB administered at lumbar levels is relatively novel and is a new horizon for regional anesthesia and pain practice. In this article, we aim to explain and introduce different approaches and explain the possible mechanism of action of lumbar ESPB. The objective of this review is to analyze the case reports, clinical and cadaveric studies about lumbar ESPB that have been published to date. We performed a search in “Pubmed” and “Google Scholar” database. After a selection of the relevant studies, 59 articles were found eligible and were included in this review. While we believe that lumbar ESPB is reliable and easy, we suggest that its efficacy and indications should be verified with anatomical and clinical studies, and its safety should be confirmed with pharmacokinetic studies. Moreover, the possibility of complications must be considered.