Low back pain represents a significant socioeconomic burden. Several nonsurgical medical treatments have been proposed for the treatment of this disabling condition. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly used to treat lumbosacral radicular pain and to avoid surgery. Even though it is still not clear which type of conservative intervention is superior, several studies have proved that ESIs are able to increase patients’ quality of life, relieve lumbosacral radicular pain and finally, reduce or delay more invasive interventions, such as spinal surgery. The aim of this narrative review is to analyze the mechanism of action of ESIs in patients affected by low back pain and investigate their current application in treating this widespread pathology.

The forces applied to the soft tissues of the upper airway may have a deleterious effect. This study was designed to evaluate the performance of the GlideScope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Twenty anaesthetists and 20 trainees attempted tracheal intubation of a Laerdal SimMan manikin. Forces and pressure distribution applied by both laryngoscope blades onto the soft upper airway tissues were measured using film pressure transducers. The minimal force needed to achieve a successful intubation, in the same simulated scenario, was measured; additionally, we considered the visualization score achieved by using the Cormack–Lehane grades. All participants applied, on average, lower force with the GlideScope than with the Macintosh in each simulated scenario. Forces [mean (sd)] applied in the normal airway scenario [anaesthetists: Macintosh 39 (22) N and GlideScope 27 (15) N; trainees: Macintosh 45 (24) N and GlideScope 21 (15) N] were lower than forces applied in the difficult airway scenario [anaesthetists: Macintosh 95 (22) N and GlideScope 66 (20) N; trainees: Macintosh 100 (38) N and GlideScope 48 (16) N]. All the intubations using the GlideScope were successful, regardless of the scenario and previous intubation experience. The average pressure on the blades was 0.13 MPa for the Macintosh and 0.07 MPa for the GlideScope, showing a higher uniformity for the latter. The GlideScope allowed the participants to obtain a successful intubation applying a lower force. A flatter and more uniform pressure distribution, a higher successful rate, and a better glottic view were observed with the GlideScope.

Ultrasound guided parasternal block is a regional anaesthesia technique targeting the anterior branches of intercostal nerves, which supply the anterior thoracic wall. The aim of this prospective study is to assess the efficacy of parasternal block to manage postoperative analgesia and reduce opioid consumption in patients undergoing cardiac surgery throughout sternotomy. A total of 126 consecutive patients were allocated to two different groups, receiving (Parasternal group) or not (Control group) preoperative ultrasound guided bilateral parasternal block with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine per side. The following data were recorded: postoperative pain expressed by a 0–10 numeric rating scale (NRS), intraoperative fentanyl consumption, postoperative morphine consumption, time to extubation and perioperative pulmonary performance at incentive spirometry. Postoperative NRS was not significantly different between Parasternal and Control groups with a median (IQR) of 2 (0–4.5) vs. 3 (0–6) upon awakening (p = 0.07); 0 (0–3) vs. 2 (0–4) at 6 h (p = 0.46); 0 (0–2) vs. 0 (0–2) at 12 h (p = 0.57). Postoperative morphine consumption was similar among groups. However, intraoperative fentanyl consumption was significantly lower in the Parasternal group [406.3 ± 81.6 mcg vs. 864.3 ± 154.4, (p < 0.001)]. Parasternal group showed shorter times to extubation [(191 ± 58 min vs. 305 ± 72 min, (p)] and better performance at incentive spirometer with a median (IQR) of 2 raised balls (1–2) vs. 1 (1–2) after awakening (p = 0.04). Ultrasound guided parasternal block provided an optimal perioperative analgesia with a significant reduction in intraoperative opioid consumption, time to extubation and a better postoperative performance at spirometry when compared to the Control group.