Background and Objectives The primary objective of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of combined suprascapular and axillary nerve block (SSAX) with interscalene block (ISB) after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Our hypothesis was that ultrasound-guided SSAX would provide postoperative analgesia equivalent to ISB. Methods Sixty adult patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery received either SSAX or ISB prior to general anesthesia, in a randomized fashion. Pain scores, satisfaction, and adverse effects were recorded in the recovery room, 6 hours, 24 hours, and 7 days after surgery. Results Combined suprascapular and axillary nerve block provided nonequivalent analgesia when compared with ISB at different time points postoperatively, except on postoperative day 7. Interscalene block had better mean static pain score in the recovery room (ISB 1.80 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10–2.50] vs SSAX 5.45 [95% CI, 4.40–6.49; P < 0.001]). At 24 hours, SSAX had better mean static pain score (ISB 6.35 [95% CI, 5.16–7.54] vs SSAX 3.92 [95% CI, 2.52–5.31]; P = 0.01) with similar satisfaction between the groups. Conclusions Combined suprascapular and axillary nerve block provides nonequivalent analgesia compared with ISB after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. While SSAX provides better quality pain relief at rest and fewer adverse effects at 24 hours, ISB provides better analgesia in the immediate postoperative period. For arthroscopic shoulder surgery, SSAX can be a clinically acceptable analgesic option with different analgesic profile compared with ISB.

Introduction Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH. Methods Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Results Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence. Conclusions These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Background The past two decades have seen an increase in cannabis use due to both regulatory changes and an interest in potential therapeutic effects of the substance, yet many aspects of the substance and their health implications remain controversial or unclear. Methods In November 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine charged the Cannabis Working Group to develop guidelines for the perioperative use of cannabis. The Perioperative Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids Guidelines Committee was charged with drafting responses to the nine key questions using a modified Delphi method with the overall goal of producing a document focused on the safe management of surgical patients using cannabinoids. A consensus recommendation required ≥75% agreement. Results Nine questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved on third-round voting. Topics addressed included perioperative screening, postponement of elective surgery, concomitant use of opioid and cannabis perioperatively, implications for parturients, adjustment in anesthetic and analgesics intraoperatively, postoperative monitoring, cannabis use disorder, and postoperative concerns. Surgical patients using cannabinoids are at potential increased risk for negative perioperative outcomes. Conclusions Specific clinical recommendations for perioperative management of cannabis and cannabinoids were successfully created.

The onset of neurologic complications after regional anesthesia is a complex process and may result from an interaction of host, agent, and environmental risk factors. The purpose of this systematic review was examine the qualitative evidence relating to various risk factors implicated in neurologic dysfunction after peripheral nerve block (PNB). The MEDLINE, OVID, and EMBASE databases were primary sources for literature. Cochrane, LILACS, DARE, IndMed, ERIC, NHS, and HTA via Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD; York University) databases were searched for additional unique results. Randomized controlled studies, case–control studies, cohort studies, retrospective reviews, and case reports/case series reporting neurologic outcomes after PNB were included. Relevant, good-quality systematic reviews were also eligible. Human and animal studies evaluating factors important for neurologic outcomes were assessed separately. Information on study design, outcomes, and quality was extracted and reviewed independently by the 2 review authors. An overall rating of the quality of evidence was assigned using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Relevant full-text articles were separated based on type (prospective, retrospective, and nonhuman studies). Strengths of association were defined as high, moderate, inconclusive, or inadequate based on study quality and direction of association. The evidence from 77 human studies was reviewed to assess various host, agent, and environmental factors that have been implicated as possible risks. Most of the available evidence regarding the injurious effects of the 3 cardinal agents of mechanical insult, pressure, and neurotoxicity was extracted from animal studies (42 studies). Among the risk factors investigated in humans, block type had a strong association with neurologic outcome. Intraneural injection, which seems to occur commonly with PNBs, showed an inconsistent direction of association. Measures meant to increase precision and ostensibly reduce the occurrence of complications such as currently available guidance techniques showed little effect on the incidence of neurologic complications. Recovery from neurologic injury appears to be worse in patients with pre-existing risk factors. Categorization and definition of neurologic complication varied among studies, making synthesis of evidence difficult. Also, a significant portion of the evidence surrounding neurologic injury associated with PNB comes from animal or laboratory studies, the results of which are difficult to translate to clinical scenarios. Of the human studies, few had an a priori design to test associations between a specific risk factor exposure and resultant neurologic sequelae. A few risk factor associations were identified in human studies, but overall quality of evidence was low. Much of the evidence for risk factors comes from animal models and case reports. The final neurologic outcome seems to represent the complex interaction of the host, agent, and the environment.

We recently described a lateral-to-medial approach for transversus abdominis plane (LM-TAP) block, which may permit preoperative initiation of the block. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of continuous LM-TAP blocks in clinical practice in comparison with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). A randomised, open-label study. University Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada from July 2008 to August 2012. Fifty adult patients undergoing open abdominal surgery via laparotomy were allocated randomly to receive preoperative catheter-congruent TEA or ultrasound-guided continuous bilateral LM-TAP block for 72 h postoperatively. Reasons for noninclusion were American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status more than 4, known allergy to study drugs, chronic pain/opioid dependence, spinal abnormalities or psychiatric illness. In the TEA group (n = 24), patient-controlled epidural analgesia was maintained using bupivacaine 0.1% with hydromorphone 10 μg ml⁻¹ after establishment of the initial block. In the LM-TAP group (n = 26), ultrasound-guided LM-TAP catheters were inserted on each side preoperatively after a bolus of 30 ml of ropivacaine 0.5% (20 ml subcostal and 10 ml subumbilical injections on both sides). Analgesia was maintained with an infusion of ropivacaine 0.35% at a rate of 2 to 2.5 ml h⁻¹ through each catheter, along with rescue intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. The primary outcome was pain score on coughing 24 h after the end of surgery. Secondary outcomes were pain scores from 24 to 72 h, intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption, time to onset of bowel movement and side effect profiles. Mean [95% confidence interval (95% CI)] pain scores at rest ranged from 1. 7 (0.9 to 2.5) to 2.3 (1.1 to 3.4) in TEA vs. 1.5 (0.7 to 2.2) to 2.2 (1.3 to 3.0) in LM-TAP (P = 0.829). The dynamic pain scores ranged from 2.9 (1.5 to 4.4) to 3.8 (2.8 to 4.8) in TEA vs. 3.3 (2.4 to 4.3) to 3.8 (2.7 to 4.9) in LM-TAP (P = 0.551). The variability in pain scores was lower in the LM-TAP group than in the TEA group in the first 24 h postoperatively. Patient satisfaction and other secondary outcomes were similar. Continuous bilateral LM-TAP block can be initiated preoperatively and may provide comparable analgesia to TEA in patients undergoing laparotomy. not registered because registration was not mandatory at the time of starting the trial.