BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve blocks may provide better conditions for closed reduction of distal radius fractures as compared to other more frequently used modalities. In this systematic review, we evaluate existing evidence on the effect and harm of peripheral nerve blocks for closed reduction of distal radius fractures in adults.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis including trials investigating the use of peripheral nerve blocks for closed reduction of distal radius fractures. Co-primary outcomes were (1) the quality of the closed reduction measured as the proportion of participants needing surgery afterwards and (2) pain during closed reduction.
RESULTS: Six trials (n = 312) met the inclusion criteria. One trial reported on the need for surgery with 4 of 25 participants receiving nerve block compared to 7 of 25 receiving haematoma block needing surgery (RR 0.57, 96.7% CI [0.19; 1.71], p = .50). Four trials reported pain during closed reduction. In a meta-analysis, pain was not statistically significantly reduced with a nerve block (-2.1 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) points (0-10), 96.7% CI [-4.4; 0.2], p = .07, tau2 = 5.4, I2 = 97%, TSA-adj. 95% CI [-11.5; 7.3]). No trial sequential boundaries were crossed, and the required information size was not met. Pre-planned subgroup analysis on trials evaluating ultrasound guided peripheral nerve blocks (patients = 110) showed a significant decrease in \'pain during reduction\' (-4.1 NRS, 96.7% CI [-5.5; -2.6], p < .01, tau2 = 0.9, I2 = 80%). All trial results were at high risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence was very low.
CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of evidence on the effect of peripheral nerve blocks for closed reduction of distal radius fractures is currently very low. Peripheral nerve blocks performed with ultrasound guidance may potentially reduce pain during closed reduction. High-quality clinical trials are warranted.

BACKGROUND: Effective training in regional anaesthesia (RA) is paramount to ensuring widespread competence. Technology-based learning has assisted other specialties in achieving more rapid procedural skill acquisition. If applicable to RA, technology-enhanced training has the potential to provide an effective learning experience and to overcome barriers to RA training. We review the current evidence base for use of innovative technologies in assisting learning of RA.
METHODS: Using scoping review methodology, three databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched, identifying 158 relevant citations. Citations were screened against defined eligibility criteria with 27 studies selected for inclusion. Data relating to study details, technological learning interventions, and impact on learner experience were extracted and analysed.
RESULTS: Seven different technologies were used to train learners in RA: artificial intelligence, immersive virtual reality, desktop virtual reality, needle guidance technology, robotics, augmented reality, and haptic feedback devices. Of 27 studies, 26 reported a positive impact of technology-enhanced RA training, with different technologies offering benefits for differing components of RA training. Artificial intelligence improved sonoanatomical knowledge and ultrasound skills for RA, whereas needle guidance technologies enhanced confidence and improved needling performance, particularly in novices. Immersive virtual reality allowed more rapid acquisition of needling skills, but its functionality was limited when combined with haptic feedback technology. User friendly technologies enhanced participant experience and improved confidence in RA; however, limitations in technology-assisted RA training restrict its widespread use.
CONCLUSIONS: Technology-enhanced RA training can provide a positive and effective learning experience, with potential to reduce the steep learning curve associated with gaining RA proficiency. A combined approach to RA education, using both technological and traditional approaches, should be maintained as no single method has been shown to provide comprehensive RA training.

Intravenous (IV) medication administration error remains a major concern during the perioperative period. This review examines inadvertent IV anaesthesia induction agent administration via high-risk routes. Using Medline and Google Scholar, the author searched published reports of inadvertent administration via neuraxial (intrathecal, epidural), peripheral nerve or plexus or intracerebroventricular (ICV) route. The author applied the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) framework to identify systemic and human factors. Among 14 patients involved, thiopentone was administered via the epidural route in six patients. Four errors involved the routes of ICV (propofol and etomidate one each) or lumbar intrathecal (propofol infusion and etomidate bolus). Intrathecal thiopentone was associated with cauda equina syndrome in one patient. HFACS identified suboptimal handling of external ventricular and lumbar drains and deficiencies in the transition of care. Organisational policy to improve the handling of neuraxial devices, use of technological tools and improvements in identified deficiencies in preconditions before drug preparation and administration may minimise future risks of inadvertent IV induction agent administration.

UNASSIGNED: Several studies have compared the safety and effectiveness of general and regional anaesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This study aimed to compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of general anaesthesia and regional anaesthesia for patients undergoing PCNL.
UNASSIGNED: For relevant articles, three electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched from their inception until March 2023. A meta-analysis has been reported in line with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR Guidelines. The risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were applied for the comparison of dichotomous and continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
UNASSIGNED: The final cohort analysis, comprised 3871 cases of PCNL, (2154 regional anaesthesia and 1717 general anaesthesia). Compared to general anaesthesia, the regional anaesthesia group had a significantly shorter length of stay (MD = -0.34 days, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.12, p = 0.002), lower postoperative nausea and vomiting rates (RR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.80, p = 0.026), lower complications grade III-V rates (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.88, p = 0.004), and lower postoperative visual analogue pain score (VAS) at 1 hour (MD = -3.5, 95% CI -4.1 to -2.9, p <0.001). There were no significant differences in other outcomes between the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: Our results show that PCNL under regional anaesthesia is safe and feasible, with comparable results to those done under general anaesthesia. While patient selection is important, counselling and decision-making for these procedures must go hand in hand to achieve the best clinical outcome.

Regional anaesthesia, referred to as regional blocks, is one of the most frequently used methods of anaesthesia for surgery and for pain management. Local anaesthetic drug should be administered as close to the nerve as possible. If administered too far away, this may result in insufficient block. If it is administrated too close, severe nerve damage can occur. Neurostimulation techniques and ultrasound imaging have improved the effectiveness and safety of blockade, but the risk of nerve injury with permanent nerve disfunction has not been eliminated. Intraneural administration of a local anaesthetic damages the nerve mechanically by the needle and the high pressure generated by the drug inside the nerve. In many studies, injection pressure is described as significantly higher for unintended intraneural injections than for perineural ones. In recent years, the concept of combining techniques (neurostimulation + USG imaging + injection pressure monitoring) has emerged as a method increasing safety and efficiency in regional anaesthesia. This study focuses on the contribution of nerve identification methods to improve the safety of peripheral nerve blocks by reducing the risk of neural damage.

UNASSIGNED: Systematic review.
UNASSIGNED: Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is growing in popularity over the recent past as an adjuvant modality in multimodal analgesic management following lumbar spine surgery (LSS). The current updated meta-analysis was performed to analyze the efficacy of ESPB for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing LSS.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted independent and duplicate electronic database searches including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library till June 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing the efficacy of bilateral ESPB for postoperative pain relief in lumbar spine surgeries. Post-operative pain scores, total analgesic consumption, first analgesic requirement time, length of stay and complications were the outcomes evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 17 software.
UNASSIGNED: 32 RCTs including 1464 patients (ESPB/Control = 1077/1069) were included in the analysis. There was a significant pain relief in ESPB group, as compared to placebo across all timelines such as during immediate post-operative period (p < 0.001), 4 h (p < 0.001), 8 h (p < 0.001), 12 h (p < 0.001), 24 h (p = 0.001) post-surgery. Similarly, ESPB group showed a significant reduction in analgesic requirement at 8 h (p < 0.001), 12 h (p = 0.001), and 24 h (p < 0.001). However, no difference was noted in the first analgesic requirement time, time to ambulate or total length of stay in the hospital. ESPB demonstrated significantly improved overall satisfaction score for the analgesic management (p < 0.001), reduced intensive care stay (p < 0.05) with significantly reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting (p < 0.001) compared to controls.
UNASSIGNED: ESPB offers prolonged post-operative pain relief compared to controls, thereby reducing the need for opioid consumption and its related complications.

BACKGROUND: Rebound pain occurs after the resolution of peripheral nerve block and hampers patient recovery in the postoperative period. We sought to synthesise available data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of prophylactic dexamethasone for rebound pain in adult patients undergoing surgery with a peripheral nerve block.
METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, RCTs reporting rebound pain and use of dexamethasone in the context of a peripheral nerve block were searched in various databases and updated in May 2023. The primary outcome was the incidence of rebound pain; secondary outcomes included the severity and time to onset of rebound pain, patient satisfaction with pain control, sleep disturbance because of pain, and adverse effects of dexamethasone. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the effect of route of administration (intravenous or perineural) on the incidence of rebound pain. Trial sequential analysis was performed to rule out the possibility of a false positive result.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs comprising 574 patients were included in this review. The dexamethasone group was associated with a reduction in the incidence of rebound pain with an odds ratio of 0.16 (95% confidence interval 0.10-0.27, P=0.00, I2=0%) compared with the control group. Trial sequential analysis confirmed the adequate information size for the beneficial effect of dexamethasone. Subgroup analysis showed that both intravenous and perineural administration were associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of rebound pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that both intravenous and perineural dexamethasone reduce the incidence of rebound pain after a peripheral nerve block provided for postoperative analgesia.
UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO CRD42023424031.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve blocks may be essential elements in a multimodal pain management regime following foot and ankle surgery. We assessed the effects of ankle blocks compared with no intervention/sham block or a sciatic nerve block in patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle.
METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase for randomised clinical trials comparing ankle block with no intervention/sham block or a sciatic nerve block for patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle. Our primary outcomes were duration of analgesia and cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption. We followed the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook, and performed meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA), and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: We included five trials (362 participants) comparing ankle block with no intervention/sham block and three trials (247 participants) comparing ankle block with a sciatic nerve block. Ankle block may increase the duration of analgesia when compared with no intervention/sham block (MD 431 min; 96.7% CI 208 to 654), but the evidence was very uncertain. Duration was decreased when compared with a sciatic nerve block (MD -410 min; 96.7% CI -462 to -358). The ankle block duration was probably important in both comparisons. The effects on cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption were very uncertain in both comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS: Ankle block may increase the duration of analgesia when compared with no intervention/sham block, but the evidence was very uncertain, and decrease the duration of analgesia when compared with a sciatic nerve block. The ankle block duration was probably clinically important in both comparisons. The effects on cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption were very uncertain.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia is a rapidly developing interdisciplinary field. There is a risk that work could be undertaken in parallel by different elements of the community but with a lack of knowledge transfer between disciplines, leading to repetition and diverging methodologies. This scoping review aimed to identify and map the available literature on the accuracy and utility of AI systems for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library. Clinical trial registries, a registry of doctoral theses, regulatory authority databases, and websites of learned societies in the field were searched. Online commercial sources were also reviewed.
RESULTS: In total, 13,014 sources were identified; 116 were included for full-text review. A marked change in AI techniques was noted in 2016-17, from which point on the predominant technique used was deep learning. Methods of evaluating accuracy are variable, meaning it is impossible to compare the performance of one model with another. Evaluations of utility are more comparable, but predominantly gained from the simulation setting with limited clinical data on efficacy or safety. Study methodology and reporting lack standardisation.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of structure to the evaluation of accuracy and utility of AI for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia, which hinders rigorous appraisal and clinical uptake. A framework for consistent evaluation is needed to inform model evaluation, allow comparison between approaches/models, and facilitate appropriate clinical adoption.

UNASSIGNED: Rectus sheath block (RSB) is an effective postoperative pain control technique in abdominal surgical procedures. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and outcome data of patients undergoing RSB compared to the standard of care in both laparoscopic and open surgical procedures.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022372596). The search was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RSB effectiveness on postoperative pain to any standard general anaesthesia technique (control). We systematically explored PubMed, Medline, Central, Scopus and Web of Science for RCTs from inception to September 2023. The primary outcome was the evaluation of pain scores at rest 0-2, 10-12 and 12-24 h postoperatively. The secondary outcome was the analysis of postoperative intravenous (IV) morphine equivalent consumption at 24-h. A risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (ROB 2.0, Cochrane, Copenhagen, Denmark) assessment and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE, Cochrane, Copenhagen, Denmark) analysis was conducted to evaluate the quality of the RCTs.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty RCTs involving 708 participants who received RSB intervention and 713 who received alternative analgesic care were included. RSB pain scores were significantly lower than control at 0-2 h (P < 0.001) and 10-12 h (P < 0.001) postoperatively. No significant effect was observed at 24 h (P = 0.11). RSB performance compared to control in 24-h IV morphine equivalency in milligrams was significantly lower (P < 0.001).
UNASSIGNED: RSB implementation was associated with reduced postoperative pain scores and decreased opioid consumption in IV morphine equivalency up to 24 h following surgical intervention.