Pub Date : 2026-01-07DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2025-107540
Kristof Nijs, Bram Keunen, Hassanin Jalil, Marc Van de Velde, Björn Stessel
{"title":"What constitutes WALANT in modern hand surgery?","authors":"Kristof Nijs, Bram Keunen, Hassanin Jalil, Marc Van de Velde, Björn Stessel","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2025-107540","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2025-107540","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145919133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-07DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2025-107469
Simon Istenič, Luka Pušnik, Chiedozie Kenneth Ugwoke, Tatjana Stopar Pintarič, Nejc Umek
Background: The mechanism by which local anesthetics spread and produce analgesia in interfascial plane blocks remains unclear. Clinical efficacy often exceeds the visible spread of injectate on imaging. This cadaveric study quantified the distribution of bupivacaine within skeletal muscle and across fascial barriers to explore diffusion as a potential contributor to interfascial plane block dynamics.
Methods: Fresh and frozen-thawed human soleus muscles were injected with a mixture of bupivacaine and methylene blue, and samples were collected along and perpendicular to fiber orientation. Fresh lower limbs were used to assess transfascial transfer across sequential crural fasciae after injection with bupivacaine, iodinated contrast, and methylene blue. The limbs were imaged with CT and samples were collected from crural compartments separated by fascial layers. Finally, simulated posteromedial quadratus lumborum block was performed in fresh cadavers, with samples harvested from the quadratus lumborum, psoas major, and diaphragm. Bupivacaine concentrations were quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.
Results: In fresh muscle, bupivacaine exhibited an anisotropic pattern, with concentration gradients decreasing more slowly along muscle fiber orientation than in transverse direction (p=0.0008). This directional difference disappeared in frozen-thawed tissue. Across fascial barriers, bupivacaine decreased exponentially with the distance from injection site, compatible with diffusion-driven transport, whereas methylene blue and iodinated contrast were not detected beyond the injected compartments. After simulated quadratus lumborum block, bupivacaine was detected in the psoas major (0.7-487.6 µg/g), quadratus lumborum (0.2-266.1 µg/g), and diaphragm (9.0-27.3 µg/g) despite no evident methylene blue spread.
Conclusions: Low-volume injectate of bupivacaine spread anisotropically within fresh muscle and permeated fascial barriers in ways not demonstrated by methylene blue or iodinated contrast. The exponential decrease of concentrations provides evidence that diffusion contributes to local anesthetic distribution and may help explain, at least in part, the broad and occasionally disproportionate sensory coverage observed clinically with interfascial plane blocks.
{"title":"Mechanistic insights into bupivacaine spread through anisotropic tissue planes and fascial barriers: experimental evidence for interfascial block dynamics.","authors":"Simon Istenič, Luka Pušnik, Chiedozie Kenneth Ugwoke, Tatjana Stopar Pintarič, Nejc Umek","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2025-107469","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2025-107469","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The mechanism by which local anesthetics spread and produce analgesia in interfascial plane blocks remains unclear. Clinical efficacy often exceeds the visible spread of injectate on imaging. This cadaveric study quantified the distribution of bupivacaine within skeletal muscle and across fascial barriers to explore diffusion as a potential contributor to interfascial plane block dynamics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fresh and frozen-thawed human soleus muscles were injected with a mixture of bupivacaine and methylene blue, and samples were collected along and perpendicular to fiber orientation. Fresh lower limbs were used to assess transfascial transfer across sequential crural fasciae after injection with bupivacaine, iodinated contrast, and methylene blue. The limbs were imaged with CT and samples were collected from crural compartments separated by fascial layers. Finally, simulated posteromedial quadratus lumborum block was performed in fresh cadavers, with samples harvested from the quadratus lumborum, psoas major, and diaphragm. Bupivacaine concentrations were quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In fresh muscle, bupivacaine exhibited an anisotropic pattern, with concentration gradients decreasing more slowly along muscle fiber orientation than in transverse direction (p=0.0008). This directional difference disappeared in frozen-thawed tissue. Across fascial barriers, bupivacaine decreased exponentially with the distance from injection site, compatible with diffusion-driven transport, whereas methylene blue and iodinated contrast were not detected beyond the injected compartments. After simulated quadratus lumborum block, bupivacaine was detected in the psoas major (0.7-487.6 µg/g), quadratus lumborum (0.2-266.1 µg/g), and diaphragm (9.0-27.3 µg/g) despite no evident methylene blue spread.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Low-volume injectate of bupivacaine spread anisotropically within fresh muscle and permeated fascial barriers in ways not demonstrated by methylene blue or iodinated contrast. The exponential decrease of concentrations provides evidence that diffusion contributes to local anesthetic distribution and may help explain, at least in part, the broad and occasionally disproportionate sensory coverage observed clinically with interfascial plane blocks.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145919049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-06DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2025-107529
Brian D Sites, Anuj B Patel, Matthew Davis, Gerard J Kerins, Timothy M Millington, Yvon Bryan
{"title":"Response to: reassessing formulary changes.","authors":"Brian D Sites, Anuj B Patel, Matthew Davis, Gerard J Kerins, Timothy M Millington, Yvon Bryan","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2025-107529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2025-107529","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145913703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-06DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2025-107068
Sam Eldabe, Sarah Nevitt, Corey W Hunter, Joshua M Rosenow, Michelle Maden, Lisa Goudman, Maarten Moens, Hemant Kalia, Nicole Soliday, Angela Leitner, Rui V Duarte, Rod S Taylor, Peter S Staats
Background/importance: Existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for people with chronic pain have consistently excluded direct comparisons between different types of SCS and are therefore at major risk of publication bias.
Objective: The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to combine both direct and indirect randomized trial evidence on treatment effects of SCS for pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
Evidence review: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and WikiStim were searched from inception to December 19, 2024 for parallel-arm randomized trials comparing SCS to conventional medical management (CMM), an active intervention (including other types of SCS) or placebo for adults with chronic pain. The measure of treatment effect for the primary outcome (pain intensity) and for secondary outcomes (physical function, HRQoL) was mean difference (MD) and 95% CI, and for responder rate was OR and 95% CI. NMA was performed in a frequentist framework.
Findings: 23 reports of 16 unique randomized trials were included. All but one trial was assessed as having a high risk of bias. Results of NMA show significant reductions in pain intensity scores (0-10) at last follow-up (within the first 24 months) were observed with all types of SCS compared with CMM, with MD range from -2.37 (95% CI -3.54 to -1.20) to -5.55 (95% CI -7.34 to -3.76; 15 trials, 1479 participants; low certainty evidence). Improvements in physical function (MD range from -0.20, 95% CI -10.24 to 9.85) to -31.04 (95% CI -44.36 to -17.33; 8 trials, 837 participants; low certainty evidence) and HRQoL (MD range from 0.15 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.20) to 0.29 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.37; 8 trials, 942 participants; moderate certainty evidence) were observed for SCS compared with CMM at 6 months. Patients were found to have a higher likelihood to be a responder to treatment (ie, ≥50% reduction in pain intensity) with all forms of SCS in comparison to CMM at last follow-up (OR range from 9.75 (95% CI 4.07 to 23.25) to OR 63.4 (18.76 to 212.55; 13 trials, 1887 participants; very low certainty evidence). Clinically meaningful improvements were observed for pain intensity, HRQoL, and in some comparisons for physical function.
Conclusions: There is low to moderate certainty of evidence that all types of SCS are superior to CMM for the management of chronic pain conditions.
背景/重要性:现有的脊髓刺激(SCS)治疗慢性疼痛患者的随机试验的系统评价和荟萃分析一直排除了不同类型SCS之间的直接比较,因此存在发表偏倚的主要风险。目的:本系统评价和网络荟萃分析(NMA)的目的是结合SCS对疼痛强度、身体功能和健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)的治疗效果的直接和间接随机试验证据。证据回顾:MEDLINE、Cochrane中央对照试验注册库(Central)、Embase和WikiStim检索了从成立到2024年12月19日比较SCS与传统医学管理(CMM)、积极干预(包括其他类型的SCS)或安慰剂治疗成人慢性疼痛的平行组随机试验。主要结局(疼痛强度)和次要结局(身体功能,HRQoL)的治疗效果测量为平均差(MD)和95% CI,反应率测量为OR和95% CI。NMA是在频率框架下进行的。研究结果:纳入了16项独特随机试验的23份报告。除一项试验外,所有试验均被评估为具有高偏倚风险。NMA的结果显示,与CMM相比,所有类型的SCS在最后随访(前24个月内)的疼痛强度评分(0-10)显著降低,MD范围从-2.37 (95% CI -3.54至-1.20)到-5.55 (95% CI -7.34至-3.76;15项试验,1479名参与者;低确定性证据)。6个月时,与CMM相比,观察到SCS在身体功能(MD范围为-0.20,95% CI为-10.24至9.85)至-31.04 (95% CI为-44.36至-17.33;8项试验,837名受试者;低确定性证据)和HRQoL (MD范围为0.15 (95% CI为0.09至0.20)至0.29 (95% CI为0.20至0.37;8项试验,942名受试者;中等确定性证据)方面的改善。在最后一次随访中发现,与CMM相比,所有形式的SCS患者对治疗有反应的可能性更高(即疼痛强度降低≥50%)(OR范围从9.75 (95% CI 4.07至23.25)到63.4(18.76至212.55;13项试验,1887名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。在疼痛强度、HRQoL和一些身体功能比较中观察到有临床意义的改善。结论:有低到中等确定性的证据表明,所有类型的SCS在治疗慢性疼痛方面都优于CMM。
{"title":"Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trial evidence of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain.","authors":"Sam Eldabe, Sarah Nevitt, Corey W Hunter, Joshua M Rosenow, Michelle Maden, Lisa Goudman, Maarten Moens, Hemant Kalia, Nicole Soliday, Angela Leitner, Rui V Duarte, Rod S Taylor, Peter S Staats","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2025-107068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2025-107068","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/importance: </strong>Existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for people with chronic pain have consistently excluded direct comparisons between different types of SCS and are therefore at major risk of publication bias.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to combine both direct and indirect randomized trial evidence on treatment effects of SCS for pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).</p><p><strong>Evidence review: </strong>MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and WikiStim were searched from inception to December 19, 2024 for parallel-arm randomized trials comparing SCS to conventional medical management (CMM), an active intervention (including other types of SCS) or placebo for adults with chronic pain. The measure of treatment effect for the primary outcome (pain intensity) and for secondary outcomes (physical function, HRQoL) was mean difference (MD) and 95% CI, and for responder rate was OR and 95% CI. NMA was performed in a frequentist framework.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>23 reports of 16 unique randomized trials were included. All but one trial was assessed as having a high risk of bias. Results of NMA show significant reductions in pain intensity scores (0-10) at last follow-up (within the first 24 months) were observed with all types of SCS compared with CMM, with MD range from -2.37 (95% CI -3.54 to -1.20) to -5.55 (95% CI -7.34 to -3.76; 15 trials, 1479 participants; low certainty evidence). Improvements in physical function (MD range from -0.20, 95% CI -10.24 to 9.85) to -31.04 (95% CI -44.36 to -17.33; 8 trials, 837 participants; low certainty evidence) and HRQoL (MD range from 0.15 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.20) to 0.29 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.37; 8 trials, 942 participants; moderate certainty evidence) were observed for SCS compared with CMM at 6 months. Patients were found to have a higher likelihood to be a responder to treatment (ie, ≥50% reduction in pain intensity) with all forms of SCS in comparison to CMM at last follow-up (OR range from 9.75 (95% CI 4.07 to 23.25) to OR 63.4 (18.76 to 212.55; 13 trials, 1887 participants; very low certainty evidence). Clinically meaningful improvements were observed for pain intensity, HRQoL, and in some comparisons for physical function.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is low to moderate certainty of evidence that all types of SCS are superior to CMM for the management of chronic pain conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145913771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-05DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2024-105791
Michelle Lim, Christina L Jeng, Garrett W Burnett, Chang H Park
Background and objectives: Most Regional Anesthesiology and Acute Pain Medicine (RAAPM) fellowship programs transitioned to virtual interviews in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, the RAAPM fellowship match started in 2023 in order to make the application process more equitable. In this study, we surveyed RAAPM fellowship program directors (PDs) to determine how such major events of the early 2020s shaped the fellowship application process.
Methods: A 16-question survey was distributed to US RAAPM program directors. The survey aimed to assess whether PDs prefer the fellowship match over the previous rolling application format and to gauge PDs' confidence in using virtual interviews to evaluate applicants.
Results: 56 (71%) RAAPM program directors completed the survey. 79% of respondents participated in the inaugural match. 59% of PDs preferred the fellowship match over the rolling application format. The interview was rated the most important selection criterion. Of the 93% of PDs who switched to virtual interviews during the pandemic, only 4 PDs (7%) resumed in-person interviews in some capacity. Majority of PDs believed that virtual interviews were not inferior to in-person interviews for assessing applicants; 48% of respondents preferred virtual interviews over in-person interviews.
Conclusions: Most RAAPM programs continued to conduct virtual interviews exclusively. Majority of program directors preferred the fellowship match. PDs ranked the interview as the most important selection factor. Most PDs thought virtual interviews were not inferior to in-person interviews, but they remained divided on which format they prefer.
{"title":"Evolving Regional Anesthesiology and Acute Pain Medicine fellowship application process: a program director survey.","authors":"Michelle Lim, Christina L Jeng, Garrett W Burnett, Chang H Park","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105791","DOIUrl":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105791","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Most Regional Anesthesiology and Acute Pain Medicine (RAAPM) fellowship programs transitioned to virtual interviews in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, the RAAPM fellowship match started in 2023 in order to make the application process more equitable. In this study, we surveyed RAAPM fellowship program directors (PDs) to determine how such major events of the early 2020s shaped the fellowship application process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 16-question survey was distributed to US RAAPM program directors. The survey aimed to assess whether PDs prefer the fellowship match over the previous rolling application format and to gauge PDs' confidence in using virtual interviews to evaluate applicants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>56 (71%) RAAPM program directors completed the survey. 79% of respondents participated in the inaugural match. 59% of PDs preferred the fellowship match over the rolling application format. The interview was rated the most important selection criterion. Of the 93% of PDs who switched to virtual interviews during the pandemic, only 4 PDs (7%) resumed in-person interviews in some capacity. Majority of PDs believed that virtual interviews were not inferior to in-person interviews for assessing applicants; 48% of respondents preferred virtual interviews over in-person interviews.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most RAAPM programs continued to conduct virtual interviews exclusively. Majority of program directors preferred the fellowship match. PDs ranked the interview as the most important selection factor. Most PDs thought virtual interviews were not inferior to in-person interviews, but they remained divided on which format they prefer.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"54-59"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142332473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-05DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2024-105889
David J Allison, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Stephanie Muise, Steven Joseph, Alexandria Roa Agudelo, Arden Lawson, Nicole Billias, John Tran, Ashley Smith, Eldon Loh
Objective: The study's primary objective was to compare the effectiveness of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injections versus corticosteroid injections for the treatment of cervical facetogenic pain. Secondary aims were to compare self-rated disability, pain self-efficacy, and the safety of the procedure between groups.
Methods: A single-site randomized double-blind controlled trial with 40 participants assigned to receive either leucocyte-poor, low-concentrate platelet-rich plasma injections or corticosteroid injection without local anesthetic into the cervical facet joint under fluoroscopy. Outcomes were collected via telephone at 1, 3, and 6 months to determine treatment effectiveness.
Results: Low-concentrate platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injections had similar effects on cervical facetogenic pain intensity over a 6-month period post injection as demonstrated by a non-significant group-by-time interaction for Numeric Rating Scale scores (p>0.05). However, both groups showed a statistically significant decrease in cervical facetogenic pain intensity 1 month post treatment compared with baseline (p=0.02), while the platelet-rich plasma group also demonstrated a clinically significant decrease in pain intensity at the same time point. There was a significant interaction at 1 month post intervention for pain self-efficacy (p=0.04), with the platelet-rich plasma injection group showing a larger increase in pain self-efficacy compared with the corticosteroid injection group. No significant interaction was observed for self-rated disability; however, significant reductions were shown at 3 and 6 months post treatment compared with baseline in both groups (p<0.01). No significant differences between groups were reported for adverse events; however, those receiving platelet-rich plasma injection reported significantly less procedural pain (p=0.02).
Conclusion: Both platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injections induced similar improvements in cervical facetogenic pain intensity (1 month post) and self-rated disability (3 and 6 months post). Pain self-efficacy demonstrated a significant interaction with platelet-rich plasma injection showing greater improvement 1 month post. Additionally, both treatments exhibited a similar low prevalence of adverse events; however, those receiving platelet-rich plasma injection reported less procedural pain.
{"title":"Intra-articular corticosteroid injections versus platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for cervical facetogenic pain: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"David J Allison, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Stephanie Muise, Steven Joseph, Alexandria Roa Agudelo, Arden Lawson, Nicole Billias, John Tran, Ashley Smith, Eldon Loh","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105889","DOIUrl":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105889","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study's primary objective was to compare the effectiveness of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injections versus corticosteroid injections for the treatment of cervical facetogenic pain. Secondary aims were to compare self-rated disability, pain self-efficacy, and the safety of the procedure between groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-site randomized double-blind controlled trial with 40 participants assigned to receive either leucocyte-poor, low-concentrate platelet-rich plasma injections or corticosteroid injection without local anesthetic into the cervical facet joint under fluoroscopy. Outcomes were collected via telephone at 1, 3, and 6 months to determine treatment effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Low-concentrate platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injections had similar effects on cervical facetogenic pain intensity over a 6-month period post injection as demonstrated by a non-significant group-by-time interaction for Numeric Rating Scale scores (p>0.05). However, both groups showed a statistically significant decrease in cervical facetogenic pain intensity 1 month post treatment compared with baseline (p=0.02), while the platelet-rich plasma group also demonstrated a clinically significant decrease in pain intensity at the same time point. There was a significant interaction at 1 month post intervention for pain self-efficacy (p=0.04), with the platelet-rich plasma injection group showing a larger increase in pain self-efficacy compared with the corticosteroid injection group. No significant interaction was observed for self-rated disability; however, significant reductions were shown at 3 and 6 months post treatment compared with baseline in both groups (p<0.01). No significant differences between groups were reported for adverse events; however, those receiving platelet-rich plasma injection reported significantly less procedural pain (p=0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injections induced similar improvements in cervical facetogenic pain intensity (1 month post) and self-rated disability (3 and 6 months post). Pain self-efficacy demonstrated a significant interaction with platelet-rich plasma injection showing greater improvement 1 month post. Additionally, both treatments exhibited a similar low prevalence of adverse events; however, those receiving platelet-rich plasma injection reported less procedural pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"33-40"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142632765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-05DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2024-105918
Takashi Fujino, Izumi Kawagoe
{"title":"Optimizing needle tip position for popliteal plexus block.","authors":"Takashi Fujino, Izumi Kawagoe","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105918","DOIUrl":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105918","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"112"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142005913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-05DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2024-105454
Thomas Giral, Bernard Victor Delvaux, Davy Huynh, Bertrand Morel, Nabil Zanoun, Franck Ehooman, Thierry Garnier, Olivier Maupain
Background: During the postoperative period of elective cesarean section, intrathecal morphine is effective in the multimodal analgesic regimen, but can cause significant adverse effects. Bilateral posterior quadratus lumborum block could be alternatively used. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of both strategies as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen.
Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled study. 104 parturients were randomly selected to receive intrathecal morphine or posterior quadratus lumborum block during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. The primary endpoint was patient-controlled 24-hour cumulative intravenous morphine use. Secondary endpoints were 48-hour cumulative morphine use, static/dynamic pain scores, functional recovery (ObsQoR-11 questionnaire) and adverse effects.
Results: There was no statistical difference in the mean cumulative morphine dose at 24-hour between groups (posterior quadratus lumborum block group, 13.7 (97.5% CI 10.4 to 16.9) mg; intrathecal morphine group, 11.1 (97.5% CI 8.4 to 13.8) mg, p=0.111). Pain scores did not show any difference between groups, excepted at 6 hours for the pain at cough/movement in favor of the posterior quadratus lumborum block group (p=0.013). A better recovery quality was observed at 24 hours in the posterior quadratus lumborum block group (p=0.009). Pruritus was more frequent in intrathecal morphine group parturients (35% vs 2%) CONCLUSIONS: No difference in cumulative morphine dose at 24 hours was observed in posterior quadratus lumborum block group compared with intrathecal morphine group. Posterior quadratus lumborum block can be considered an alternative to intrathecal morphine in cesarean postoperative analgesia, especially in cases of intolerance to morphine.
Trial registration number: NCT04755712.
背景:在择期剖宫产术后,鞘内吗啡在多模式镇痛方案中是有效的,但会引起明显的不良反应。双侧腰后部阻滞可作为替代方法。本研究旨在比较这两种策略作为多模式镇痛方案一部分的有效性和安全性:这是一项前瞻性、随机、盲法对照研究。随机选取了104名产妇,让她们在脊髓麻醉下进行剖宫产手术时接受鞘内吗啡或腰后四肌阻滞。主要终点是由患者控制的 24 小时累积静脉注射吗啡用量。次要终点是48小时累积吗啡用量、静态/动态疼痛评分、功能恢复(ObsQoR-11问卷)和不良反应:各组 24 小时平均累积吗啡剂量无统计学差异(腰后区阻滞组,13.7(97.5% CI 10.4 至 16.9)毫克;鞘内吗啡组,11.1(97.5% CI 8.4 至 13.8)毫克,P=0.111)。疼痛评分在各组之间没有显示出任何差异,只有在6小时时,咳嗽/活动时的疼痛评分有利于后腰方肌阻滞组(P=0.013)。在 24 小时时,观察到腰后肌阻滞组的恢复质量更好(P=0.009)。鞘内吗啡组产妇瘙痒的发生率更高(35% 对 2% ):与鞘内吗啡组相比,腰后区阻滞组在 24 小时内的累积吗啡剂量没有差异。在剖宫产术后镇痛中,尤其是在对吗啡不耐受的情况下,腰后区阻滞可被视为鞘内吗啡的替代品:试验注册号:NCT04755712。
{"title":"Posterior quadratus lumborum block versus intrathecal morphine analgesia after scheduled cesarean section: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.","authors":"Thomas Giral, Bernard Victor Delvaux, Davy Huynh, Bertrand Morel, Nabil Zanoun, Franck Ehooman, Thierry Garnier, Olivier Maupain","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105454","DOIUrl":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105454","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>During the postoperative period of elective cesarean section, intrathecal morphine is effective in the multimodal analgesic regimen, but can cause significant adverse effects. Bilateral posterior quadratus lumborum block could be alternatively used. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of both strategies as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled study. 104 parturients were randomly selected to receive intrathecal morphine or posterior quadratus lumborum block during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. The primary endpoint was patient-controlled 24-hour cumulative intravenous morphine use. Secondary endpoints were 48-hour cumulative morphine use, static/dynamic pain scores, functional recovery (ObsQoR-11 questionnaire) and adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no statistical difference in the mean cumulative morphine dose at 24-hour between groups (posterior quadratus lumborum block group, 13.7 (97.5% CI 10.4 to 16.9) mg; intrathecal morphine group, 11.1 (97.5% CI 8.4 to 13.8) mg, p=0.111). Pain scores did not show any difference between groups, excepted at 6 hours for the pain at cough/movement in favor of the posterior quadratus lumborum block group (p=0.013). A better recovery quality was observed at 24 hours in the posterior quadratus lumborum block group (p=0.009). Pruritus was more frequent in intrathecal morphine group parturients (35% vs 2%) CONCLUSIONS: No difference in cumulative morphine dose at 24 hours was observed in posterior quadratus lumborum block group compared with intrathecal morphine group. Posterior quadratus lumborum block can be considered an alternative to intrathecal morphine in cesarean postoperative analgesia, especially in cases of intolerance to morphine.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04755712.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"82-89"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142141795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Backgrounds: Ultrasound-guided proximal and distal approaches of the intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN) blocks facilitate analgesia for upper arm and axillary surgery, though success rates vary and lack clinical comparison. This study compared their anesthetic and analgesic efficacy as an adjunct to the supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper arm arteriovenous access surgery.
Methods: 60 end-stage renal disease patients undergoing upper arm arteriovenous access were randomly assigned to receive either proximal or distal ICBN block using 10 mL of a mixture of levobupivacaine and lidocaine with epinephrine. The primary outcome was a successful ICBN block, defined as a cutaneous sensory blockade at both the medial upper arm and axilla 30 min after the block. Secondary outcomes included block performance, block-related complications, rate of surgical anesthesia, and postoperative analgesia.
Results: The proximal approach had a higher percentage of sensory blockade at the axilla (96.7% vs 73.3%, p=0.03), but comparable rates at the medial upper arm (96.7% vs 96.7%, p=1.00). Consequently, the proximal approach had a higher overall success rate (96.7% vs 73.3%, difference: 23.3%; 95% CI: 6.3%, 40.4%; p=0.03). Both groups had similar surgical anesthesia rates of 93.3%. No significant differences were found in performance time, procedural pain, or postoperative pain intensity.
Conclusions: Proximal ICBN block consistently reduced sensation in the medial upper arm and axilla, while one-quarter of distal blocks spared the axilla. Both approaches, in combination with a supraclavicular brachial plexus block, were effective for upper arm arteriovenous access procedures. However, the proximal approach may be preferable for axillary surgery.
Trial registration number: TCTR20200730006.
背景:超声引导下的肋间神经(ICBN)近端和远端阻滞有助于上臂和腋窝手术的镇痛,但成功率各不相同,缺乏临床比较。方法:60 名接受上臂动静脉入路手术的终末期肾病患者被随机分配接受近端或远端 ICBN 阻滞,使用 10 mL 左布比卡因和利多卡因与肾上腺素的混合物。主要结果是 ICBN 阻滞成功,即阻滞 30 分钟后上臂内侧和腋窝的皮肤感觉阻滞。次要结果包括阻滞效果、阻滞相关并发症、手术麻醉率和术后镇痛:结果:近端方法在腋窝的感觉阻滞率更高(96.7% vs 73.3%,P=0.03),但在上臂内侧的感觉阻滞率相当(96.7% vs 96.7%,P=1.00)。因此,近端方法的总体成功率更高(96.7% vs 73.3%,差异:23.3%;95% CI:6.3%, 40.4%;P=0.03)。两组的手术麻醉率相似,均为 93.3%。在手术时间、手术疼痛或术后疼痛强度方面没有发现明显差异:结论:近端 ICBN 阻滞会持续降低上臂内侧和腋窝的感觉,而四分之一的远端阻滞不会影响腋窝。这两种方法结合锁骨上臂丛阻滞对上臂动静脉入路手术都很有效。不过,近端方法可能更适合腋窝手术:试验注册号:TTR20200730006。
{"title":"Randomized comparison between ultrasound-guided proximal and distal approaches of intercostobrachial nerve block as an adjunct to supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper arm arteriovenous access procedures.","authors":"Artid Samerchua, Kittitorn Supphapipat, Prangmalee Leurcharusmee, Panuwat Lapisatepun, Pornpailin Thammasupapong, Sratwadee Lorsomradee","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105973","DOIUrl":"10.1136/rapm-2024-105973","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Backgrounds: </strong>Ultrasound-guided proximal and distal approaches of the intercostobrachial nerve (ICBN) blocks facilitate analgesia for upper arm and axillary surgery, though success rates vary and lack clinical comparison. This study compared their anesthetic and analgesic efficacy as an adjunct to the supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper arm arteriovenous access surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>60 end-stage renal disease patients undergoing upper arm arteriovenous access were randomly assigned to receive either proximal or distal ICBN block using 10 mL of a mixture of levobupivacaine and lidocaine with epinephrine. The primary outcome was a successful ICBN block, defined as a cutaneous sensory blockade at both the medial upper arm and axilla 30 min after the block. Secondary outcomes included block performance, block-related complications, rate of surgical anesthesia, and postoperative analgesia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The proximal approach had a higher percentage of sensory blockade at the axilla (96.7% vs 73.3%, p=0.03), but comparable rates at the medial upper arm (96.7% vs 96.7%, p=1.00). Consequently, the proximal approach had a higher overall success rate (96.7% vs 73.3%, difference: 23.3%; 95% CI: 6.3%, 40.4%; p=0.03). Both groups had similar surgical anesthesia rates of 93.3%. No significant differences were found in performance time, procedural pain, or postoperative pain intensity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Proximal ICBN block consistently reduced sensation in the medial upper arm and axilla, while one-quarter of distal blocks spared the axilla. Both approaches, in combination with a supraclavicular brachial plexus block, were effective for upper arm arteriovenous access procedures. However, the proximal approach may be preferable for axillary surgery.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>TCTR20200730006.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"76-81"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142513066","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}