Recommendations for anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of intermediate and advanced blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia

Recent recommendations describe a set of core anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA). This project aimed to generate consensus recommendations for core structures to identify during the performance of intermediate and advanced blocks. An initial longlist of structures was refined by an international panel of key opinion leaders in UGRA over a three-round Delphi process. All rounds were conducted virtually and anonymously. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for ``orientation scanning'' (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for ``block view'' (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). A ``strong recommendation'' was made if \geq75% of participants rated any structure as ``definitely include'' in any round. A ``weak recommendation'' was made if >50% of participants rated it as ``definitely include'' or ``probably include'' for all rounds, but the criterion for strong recommendation was never met. Structures which did not meet either criterion were excluded. Forty-one participants were invited and 40 accepted; 38 completed all three rounds. Participants considered the ultrasound scanning for 19 peripheral nerve blocks across all three rounds. Two hundred and seventy-four structures were reviewed for both orientation scanning and block view; a ``strong recommendation'' was made for 60 structures on orientation scanning and 44 on the block view. A ``weak recommendation'' was made for 107 and 62 structures, respectively. These recommendations are intended to help standardize teaching and research in UGRA and support widespread and consistent practice

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia:an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of upper and lower limb nerve blocks

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.</p

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia:an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of upper and lower limb nerve blocks

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.</p