Ultrasound guidance has reduced the amount of local anesthetics to achieve a successful block. Previous studies of the relationship between the volume or concentration of local anesthetics and the effects of the block were based on relatively high doses of local anesthetics. We tested the hypothesis that providing low dose of ropivacaine at three combinations of volumes and concentrations for ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block would produce different effects in the aspect of onset time, pain control and the incidence of side effects. Ninety-nine patients undergoing elective arthroscopic shoulder surgery were randomized to receive an ultrasound guided combined with nerve stimulator mediated interscalene block with ropivacaine 0.75 % (6.7 ml, Group 0.75), 0.5 % (10 ml, Group 0.5) or 0.25 % (20 ml, Group 0.25). The primary end point was the onset time of the sensory blockade, assessed by using a pinprick in the C5-6 dermatome. The secondary end points included the onset time of the motor blockade, block success rate, postoperative pain rating score, rescue analgesics requirement, sleep quality, strength of the hand on the block side,and the incidence of hemi-diaphragmatic paresis which was evaluated by ultrasonography. There was a statistically significant difference of the sensory block median onset times among Group 0.75 (5 min), Group 0.5 (10 min) and Group 0.25 (20 min). One patient in Group 0.5 and 20 patients in Group 0.25 did not achieve a complete motor block within 30 min, which were also significantly different. No significant difference was observed in postoperative analgesia, decrease of handgrip strength and the incidence of hemi-diaphragmatic paresis among the 3 groups. This study demonstrates that ropivacaine 50 mg as 0.25, 0.5 or 0.75 % solution for interscalene brachial plexus block before arthroscopic shoulder surgery produces comparable blockade with few side effects, while 0.75 % seems to be more preferable as it is associated with faster onset time. ChiCTR-TRC-13004058 . Registered 4 December 2013.

Currently, no reported studies have evaluated intraoperative handover among anesthesia providers. Studies on anesthetic handover in the US recovery room setting observed that handover processes are insufficient and, in many instances, significant intraoperative events are disregarded. An online survey tool was sent to anesthesia providers at US anesthesia residency programs nationwide (120 out of the 132 US programs encompassing around 4500 residents and their academic MDAs) and a smaller survey selection of CRNAs (10 institutions about 300 CRNAs in the metropolitan area of Detroit, MI, USA) to collect information on handover practices. The response rate to this survey (n = 216) was comprised of approximately 5% (n = 71) of the resident population in US anesthesia programs, 5% (n = 87) of MDAs , and 20% (n = 58) of the CRNAs. Out of all respondents (n = 212), 49.1 % had no hand-over protocol at their institution and 88% of respondents who did have institutional handover protocols believed them insufficient for effective patient handover. In addiiton, 84.8% of all responders reported situations where there was insufficient information received during a patient handover. Only 7% of the respondents reported never experiencing complications or mismanagement due to poor or incomplete hand-overs. In contrast, 60% reported rarely having complications, 31% reported sometimes having complications, and 3% reported frequent complications. In conclusion, handover transition of patient care is a vulnerable and potentially life-threatening event in the operating room. Our preliminary study suggests that current intraoperatvive handover practices among anesthesia providers are suboptimal and that national patient handover guidelines are required to improve patient safety.

EndoSheath bronchoscopy (Vision Sciences, Inc.) uses a sterile, disposable microbial barrier that may meet the growing needs for safe, efficient, and cost effective flexible bronchoscopy. The purpose of this open-label comparative study was to compare and calculate the costs-per-airway-procedure of the reusable fiberscope when used with and without EndoSheath(®) Technology; and to record the turnover time from the completion of the use of each scope until its readiness again for the next use. Seventy-five new patients' airways requiring airway maneuvers and manipulations with Vision Sciences, Inc., reusable fiberscope with EndoSheath(®) Technology were evaluated for the costs comparisons with reassessed historical costs data for Olympus scope assisted tracheal intubations. As compared to costs of an intubation ($158.50) with Olympus scope at our institute, the intubation costs with Vision Sciences, Inc., reusable fiberscope with EndoSheath technology was $81.50 (P < 0.001). The mean turnover time was 5.44 min with EndoSheath technology as compared to previously reported 30 min with Olympus fiberscope (P < 0.001). Based on our institutional experience, Vision Sciences, Inc., reusable fiberscope with EndoSheath technology is significantly cost effective as compared to the Olympus scope with significantly improved turnover times.