Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks.
METHODS: We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement.
RESULTS: A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research.
CONCLUSIONS: We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.
METHODS: We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement.
RESULTS: A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research.
CONCLUSIONS: We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.
摘要：
背景：区域麻醉技术的术语和解剖学描述不一致会阻碍科学交流并引起混淆；这反过来又对研究产生了影响，区域麻醉的教育和临床实施。产生了腹壁的标准化命名法，椎旁和胸壁区域麻醉技术，我们的目标是同样这样做的上肢和下肢周围神经阻滞。
方法：我们进行了三轮Delphi国际共识研究，以生成上肢和下肢区域麻醉技术的标准化名称和解剖学描述。指导委员会成员列出了上下肢块的名称和解剖学描述。随后，两轮匿名投票和评论之后，举行了第三次虚拟圆桌会议，以确保对第一轮和第二轮后仍未完成的项目达成共识。与以前的方法一样，强共识定义为≥75%的一致性,弱共识定义为50%-74%的一致性.
结果：共有94、91和65名合作者参加了第一，第二轮和第三轮，分别。我们对38个名字和33个解剖描述达成了强烈共识，对五种解剖学描述的共识薄弱。我们根据神经名称和阻滞的解剖位置商定了命名周围神经阻滞的模板，并确定了未来研究的几个领域。
结论：我们就上肢和下肢神经阻滞的局部麻醉技术的命名和解剖学描述达成了共识，并建议在临床和学术实践中使用该框架。这应该改善研究，区域麻醉的教学和学习，最终改善患者护理。
方法：我们进行了三轮Delphi国际共识研究，以生成上肢和下肢区域麻醉技术的标准化名称和解剖学描述。指导委员会成员列出了上下肢块的名称和解剖学描述。随后，两轮匿名投票和评论之后，举行了第三次虚拟圆桌会议，以确保对第一轮和第二轮后仍未完成的项目达成共识。与以前的方法一样，强共识定义为≥75%的一致性,弱共识定义为50%-74%的一致性.
结果：共有94、91和65名合作者参加了第一，第二轮和第三轮，分别。我们对38个名字和33个解剖描述达成了强烈共识，对五种解剖学描述的共识薄弱。我们根据神经名称和阻滞的解剖位置商定了命名周围神经阻滞的模板，并确定了未来研究的几个领域。
结论：我们就上肢和下肢神经阻滞的局部麻醉技术的命名和解剖学描述达成了共识，并建议在临床和学术实践中使用该框架。这应该改善研究，区域麻醉的教学和学习，最终改善患者护理。
