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.

Caudal epidural blockade remains the cornerstone of pediatric regional anesthesia. In this article we provide a comprehensive review of the recent developments in caudal anesthesia in infants and children. Research has focused on prolonging the duration of single-shot caudal blocks and accurately positioning continuous caudal catheters. New local anesthetics with similar potencies but less toxicity have been introduced. Opioids prolong the duration of analgesia of local anesthetic, but have also been associated with unacceptable side effects, particularly in pediatric outpatients. Various non-opioid adjuncts with more favorable side-effect profiles may increase the duration of analgesia. New ultrasound and nerve-stimulation techniques have been developed to accurately guide epidural catheters to a specific spinal level. The addition of ketamine or clonidine to a caudal local anesthetic prolong the duration of the block. However, a preservative-free preparation of ketamine that is suitable for neuraxial use is not widely available. Ultrasound imaging and electrical stimulation are promising options to accurately position a caudal needle. However, because ultrasound imaging is more difficult in older children, nerve stimulation is a more-suitable technique to accurately guide caudal catheters in this patient population. Although complications associated with caudal block are rare, the risks and benefits must be carefully considered on an individual basis.

Background: The study was designed to examine a new method of confirming proper caudal needle placement using nerve stimulation. Methods: Thirty-two pediatric patients were studied. A 22-gauge insulated needle was inserted into the caudal canal via the sacral notch until a "pop" was felt. The needle placement was classified as correct or incorrect depending upon the presence or absence of anal sphincter contraction (S2-S4) to electrical simulation (1 to 10 mA). Results: Three patients were excluded, two because they inadvertently received neuromuscular blockers and one because the patient's anatomy precluded any attempt at a caudal block. The sensitivity and specificity of the test were both 100% in predicting clinical outcomes of the caudal block. Six patients had a negative stimulation test after the first attempt to place the needle. Four of these went on to receive a second attempt of needle insertion after a subcutaneous bulge or resistance to local anesthetic injection were observed. Following needle reinsertion, positive stimulation tests were elicited. These patients received the local anesthetic injection with ease and had good analgesia postoperatively. No attempt was made to reinsert the needle in the remaining two patients with a negative stimulation test, as they did not show subcutaneous bulge or resistance upon injection. These patients had poor analgesia postoperatively. The positive predictive value of the test was greater than the presence of a "pop" alone (P < 0.05) but not significantly different (P = 0.492) over the presence of "pop" and easy injection. Conclusion: This test may be used as a teaching and adjuvant tool in performing caudal block.