Regional anesthesia and pain management have experienced advances in recent years, especially with the advent of fascial plane blocks. The erector spinae plane block is one of the newest techniques to be described. In the past two years, publications referring to ESP block have increased significantly. The objective of this review is to analyze the articles about ESP block that have been published to date. We performed a search in the main databases and identified 368 articles. After a selection of the relevant articles, 125 studies were found eligible and were included in the review. The ESP block is performed by depositing the local anesthetic in the fascial plane, deeper than the erector spinae muscle at the tip of the transverse process of the vertebra. Many cases of its use have been described with satisfactory results in the treatment of both acute pain and chronic pain. The applicability of the technique covers many clinical scenarios. Of the 98 case reports reviewed, 12 and 87 articles, respectively described the technique as a treatment for chronic pain and acute pain. The single-shot was the most frequently used technique. As described in the articles published to date, the technique is easy to perform and has a low rate of complications. However, despite the effectiveness of the technique, further studies are necessary to obtain more evidence of its actions.

The purpose of the study was to assess blood flow in the upper limb arteries after prolonged catheterization with long radial artery catheters (LRC) which reach the subclavian artery compared to catheterization with standard short radial artery catheters (SRC) and a group of upper limb flow without any catheter placement (NOCATH), with both SRC and NOCATH as control groups. Prospective observational study with 20 patients admitted to ICU (40 upper limbs) with LRC and/or SRC inserted >48 h for hemodynamic monitoring. More than 45 days after catheter withdrawal, patients underwent a Doppler ultrasound study of both upper limbs. Arterial flows of arms with LRC (FlowLRC) were compared with arterial flows of arms with SRC (FlowSRC) and those without any catheter (FlowNOCATH). Flow in the ulnar, brachial, and subclavian arteries did not show any significant difference between the two types of catheters. The only significant difference was in the radial arteries, showing a lower mean flow in the arms with LRC than in the arms with SRC (2.2 vs. 8.5 cc/min; p = 0.041). Flow reduction in the radial artery (74%) in the arms with LRC compared to the SRC arms showed a tendency to increase ulnar flow as a compensatory mechanism. None of the patients with LRC included in our study had any ischemic events, in spite of observing complete flow occlusion in three radial arteries (18%) from the Doppler study. In this sample, the use of PiCCO long radial catheters reaching the subclavian artery did not produce chronic significant changes in brachial or subclavian flows. However, LRC produces a significant reduction in radial flow and a tendency to increase ulnar flow. When comparing these blood flow changes with those produced by SRC use, only the radial flow reduction was significantly lower, whereas the other arterial flow changes did not significantly differ.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation failure in patients with difficult airway is still not uncommon. While videolaryngoscopes such as the Glidescope offer better glottic vision due to an acute-angled blade, this advantage does not always lead to an increased success rate because successful insertion of the tube through the vocal cords may be the limiting factor. We hypothesize that combined use of Glidescope and fiberscope used only as a dynamic guide facilitates tracheal intubation compared to a conventional Glidescope technique with a preshaped nondynamic stylet. METHODS: One hundred sixty adult patients with predicted difficult airway were randomly assigned to a conventional Glidescope (standard Glidescope group) or a combined Glidescope + fiberscope group intubation. In the Glidescope + fiberscope group under direct vision from the Glidescope, tracheal intubation was performed using the fiberscope as a guide without using fiberoptic vision, while in the standard Glidescope group, a conventional stylet-guided intubation technique was performed. We evaluated the rate of tracheal intubation success at first attempt as the primary end point (Fisher exact test). The difference between groups in airway injury, time to successful intubation, and the need for an alternative technique was also evaluated. RESULTS: First-attempt intubation success was higher in the Glidescope + fiberscope group than in the standard Glidescope group (91% vs 67%; P = .0012; fragility index, 8; absolute risk reduction, 24% [95% CI, 12%–36%]). Median time to successful tracheal intubation was shorter in the Glidescope + fiberscope group (50 vs 64 seconds; P = .035). Airway injury rate was lower in the Glidescope + fiberscope group than in the standard Glidescope group (1% vs 11%; P = .035; fragility index, 1; absolute risk reduction, 10% [95% CI, 3%–18%]). Alternative rescue technique requirements to achieve tracheal intubation were higher in the standard Glidescope group (24% vs 4%; P < .001; fragility index, 7). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a dynamic, flexible guide during a Glidescope laryngoscopy in patients with a predicted difficult airway compared to a standard intubation technique improves first-attempt intubation success, decreases the incidence of airway injury and time to successful intubation, as well as the need of an alternative technique to succeed.

Postoperative pulmonary and non-pulmonary complications are common problems that increase morbidity and mortality in surgical patients, even though the incidence has decreased with the increased use of protective lung ventilation strategies. Previous trials have focused on standard strategies in the intraoperative or postoperative period, but without personalizing these strategies to suit the needs of each individual patient and without considering both these periods as a global perioperative lung-protective approach. The trial presented here aims at comparing postoperative complications when using an individualized ventilatory management strategy in the intraoperative and immediate postoperative periods with those when using a standard protective ventilation strategy in patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery. This is a comparative, prospective, multicenter, randomized, and controlled, four-arm trial that will include 1012 patients with an intermediate or high risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The patients will be divided into four groups: (1) individualized perioperative group: intra- and postoperative individualized strategy; (2) intraoperative individualized strategy + postoperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); (3) intraoperative standard ventilation + postoperative CPAP; (4) intra- and postoperative standard strategy (conventional strategy). The primary outcome is a composite analysis of postoperative complications. The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy (iPROVE) is the first multicenter, randomized, and controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents postoperative pulmonary complications. Registered on 5 June 2014 with identification no. NCT02158923 .