Mathew B. Kiberd, Regan Brownbridge, Matthew Mackin, Daniel Werry, Sally Bird, Garrett Barry, Jonathan G. Bailey
{"title":"模拟微重力下超声引导神经阻滞的可行性:深空任务中区域麻醉的概念验证研究。","authors":"Mathew B. Kiberd, Regan Brownbridge, Matthew Mackin, Daniel Werry, Sally Bird, Garrett Barry, Jonathan G. Bailey","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>With crewed deep space exploration on the horizon, preparation for potential astronaut health crises in space missions has become vital. Administration of anaesthesia and analgesia presents many challenges owing to constraints specific to space (physiologic and ergonomic challenges associated with microgravity) and nonspecific factors (isolation and lack of supplies). Regional anaesthesia can be the safest option; however, we hypothesised that the ergonomics of microgravity would compromise ease and accuracy of nerve blocks.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We evaluated the feasibility of regional anaesthesia in a simulated microgravity environment (free-floating underwater conditions) using a meat (bovine muscle) model. Forty meat models were randomised for injection under simulated microgravity or normal gravity conditions. Success rates were determined by blinded assessors after injection. Parameters assessed included time to block, ease of image acquisition, and ease of needle placement.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median time to block in normal gravity was 27 (interquartile range 21–69) s <em>vs</em> 35 (interquartile range 22–48) s in simulated microgravity (<em>P</em>=0.751). Ease of image acquisition was similar in both conditions, as was ease of needle placement. There was no significant difference in the rate of accidental intraneural injections (5% <em>vs</em> 5%), with block success rates comparable in both scenarios (80% normal gravity <em>vs</em> 85% microgravity, <em>P</em>>0.999).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Regional anaesthesia appears feasible for experts in simulated microgravity despite the ergonomic challenges. Although our model has limitations and might not fully capture the complexities of actual space conditions, it provides a foundation for future research into anaesthesia and analgesia during deep space missions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"133 6","pages":"Pages 1276-1283"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks in simulated microgravity: a proof-of-concept study for regional anaesthesia during deep space missions\",\"authors\":\"Mathew B. Kiberd, Regan Brownbridge, Matthew Mackin, Daniel Werry, Sally Bird, Garrett Barry, Jonathan G. Bailey\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>With crewed deep space exploration on the horizon, preparation for potential astronaut health crises in space missions has become vital. Administration of anaesthesia and analgesia presents many challenges owing to constraints specific to space (physiologic and ergonomic challenges associated with microgravity) and nonspecific factors (isolation and lack of supplies). Regional anaesthesia can be the safest option; however, we hypothesised that the ergonomics of microgravity would compromise ease and accuracy of nerve blocks.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We evaluated the feasibility of regional anaesthesia in a simulated microgravity environment (free-floating underwater conditions) using a meat (bovine muscle) model. Forty meat models were randomised for injection under simulated microgravity or normal gravity conditions. Success rates were determined by blinded assessors after injection. Parameters assessed included time to block, ease of image acquisition, and ease of needle placement.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median time to block in normal gravity was 27 (interquartile range 21–69) s <em>vs</em> 35 (interquartile range 22–48) s in simulated microgravity (<em>P</em>=0.751). Ease of image acquisition was similar in both conditions, as was ease of needle placement. There was no significant difference in the rate of accidental intraneural injections (5% <em>vs</em> 5%), with block success rates comparable in both scenarios (80% normal gravity <em>vs</em> 85% microgravity, <em>P</em>>0.999).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Regional anaesthesia appears feasible for experts in simulated microgravity despite the ergonomic challenges. Although our model has limitations and might not fully capture the complexities of actual space conditions, it provides a foundation for future research into anaesthesia and analgesia during deep space missions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"133 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1276-1283\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224004914\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224004914","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Feasibility of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks in simulated microgravity: a proof-of-concept study for regional anaesthesia during deep space missions
Background
With crewed deep space exploration on the horizon, preparation for potential astronaut health crises in space missions has become vital. Administration of anaesthesia and analgesia presents many challenges owing to constraints specific to space (physiologic and ergonomic challenges associated with microgravity) and nonspecific factors (isolation and lack of supplies). Regional anaesthesia can be the safest option; however, we hypothesised that the ergonomics of microgravity would compromise ease and accuracy of nerve blocks.
Methods
We evaluated the feasibility of regional anaesthesia in a simulated microgravity environment (free-floating underwater conditions) using a meat (bovine muscle) model. Forty meat models were randomised for injection under simulated microgravity or normal gravity conditions. Success rates were determined by blinded assessors after injection. Parameters assessed included time to block, ease of image acquisition, and ease of needle placement.
Results
The median time to block in normal gravity was 27 (interquartile range 21–69) s vs 35 (interquartile range 22–48) s in simulated microgravity (P=0.751). Ease of image acquisition was similar in both conditions, as was ease of needle placement. There was no significant difference in the rate of accidental intraneural injections (5% vs 5%), with block success rates comparable in both scenarios (80% normal gravity vs 85% microgravity, P>0.999).
Conclusions
Regional anaesthesia appears feasible for experts in simulated microgravity despite the ergonomic challenges. Although our model has limitations and might not fully capture the complexities of actual space conditions, it provides a foundation for future research into anaesthesia and analgesia during deep space missions.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience.
The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence.
Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.