Author: theanaesthesia.blog

There has been concern for some time in some areas of the UK that critical care admission is rationed according to age. This new retrospective observational study from Pugh et al., which was conceived and conducted before the outbreak of COVID-19, aimed to investigate trends in patient characteristics for adult critical care admissions in Wales between 2008-2017. They analysed 85,629 cases with the oldest cohort (≥ 80 years) accounting for 15% of critical care admissions. The proportions in each age bracket did not change over the study period. However, in contrast to several recent reports, they identified a significant decline in admissions of older patients (aged ≥ 65 years) relative to the national population, of those with comorbidity and those with a medical diagnosis (Fig. 1).

Has critical care capacity failed to keep pace with the needs of an ageing population? Lone and Suntharalingam make a case for the need to learn, adapt and ensure equity and appropriate best care for our growing cohorts of those aged > 65 years and new octogenarians. That said, the priority for many older critically unwell adults is not always survival at all costs. What will anaesthesia and peri-operative medicine look like to us when many of the current workforce are classed as an older adult in ~25 years? Fawcett and Klein discuss the implications for genomics, AI, service delivery, peri-operative medicine, green anaesthesia and radiology. The only certainty seems to be that our skills will continue to be in demand and there will inevitably be significant workforce shortages. 

Dexmedetomidine is now used widely for several indications in peri-operative practice and critical care medicine. This new randomised controlled trial from van Norden et al. is the first to investigate the effect of peri-operative administration of dexmedetomidine on the incidence of postoperative delirium in major cardiac and non-cardiac surgical patients aged > 60 years. They found that found a significant reduction in postoperative delirium to 18% from 44% when dexmedetomidine was administered as compared with placebo (Fig. 2). In the accompanying editorial from Chuan and Sanders, the biological plausibility of this finding is assessed, and dexmedetomidine might not be the much sought-after magic bullet for the prevention of postoperative.

This new science letter from Shah et al. reports results from a retrospective cohort study of general ICU survivors in two large health regions in the UK aiming to benchmark how many patients had anaemia-specific treatment (excluding blood transfusion) initiated before hospital discharge. The key findings were: a high prevalence of anaemia at ICU discharge and subsequently hospital discharge; little active management of anaemia during this important time period; and Hb of < 100 g.l^-1 was associated with prolonged hospitalisation following ICU discharge. Also in this month’s issue, van der Laan et al. report their retrospective analysis of anaemia among intensive care unit survivors and its association with days alive and at home. They found that among ICU survivors, anaemia was highly prevalent and persistent in most patients at hospital discharge. Haemoglobin concentration < 100 g.l^-1 at ICU discharge was experienced by 2886 (45.4%) of ICU survivors and independently associated with five fewer days alive and at home to day 90. This association remained significant when accounting for confounders including ICU length of stay, illness severity and red blood cell transfusion, and was attributable predominantly to fewer days at home among anaemic ICU survivors. In addition, ICU discharge anaemia was also an independent predictor of ICU and hospital re-admission (Fig. 3). In the accompanying editorial, Agarwal and Karkouti discuss both studies and remind us that the findings from each might at best be hypothesis generating only. They remind us of the vast amount of work still to be done in what is becoming and increasingly important area of clinical practice.

We are delighted to publish a Special Article from Takla et al. in this month’s issue, which raises some difficult ethical and legal issues around the use of general anaesthesia in end-of-life care. They remind us that our speciality already has a self-declared mission to extend the role of anaesthetists beyond the operating theatre in its strategy of championing ‘peri-operative medicine’. They argue that their redefinition of the scope and reach of general anaesthesia through end-of-life care, radical though it is, would be entirely in line with that philosophy, recognising that anaesthetists have skills that can help alleviate suffering for the dying patient. Their main findings were that peri-operative lidocaine infusions of extended duration can be delivered safely and effectively in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery, and that a definitive, multicentre trial employing these design features is feasible. 

One of our most popular podcasts episodes was about the use of intravenous lidocaine in peri-operative practice released November 2020. This new pilot multicentre randomised controlled trial of lidocaine infusion in women undergoing breast cancer surgery from Toner et al. enrolled 150 patients and looked at safety, effectiveness and the feasibility of a larger trial. Daliya et al. report their retrospective observational study of Opioid prescription at postoperative discharge. They were able to isolate a number of recognised risk-factors in the prescribing habits of clinicians at discharge that could contribute to a large unused pool of opioids in the community. In the accompanying editorial, Albrecht and Brummett remind us that if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it. They argue that improvement can be made through: proper adherence to education and guidelines; by embracing simple measures such as prescription of non-opioid analgesics at regular intervals; specification on the duration of the course of immediate-release opioid tablets; avoidance of long-acting opioid formulations and compound analgesic preparations; and advice on deprescribing.

Elsewhere this month we have: a systematic review of suicide in anaesthetists; a systematic review of simulation-based team training in airway management; new Association of Anaesthetists fire safety and evacuation guidelines; and a time-sensitivity analysis of the prognostic utility of vasopressor dose in septic shock. 

Finally, make sure you do not miss our next live broadcast with our Associate Editor Dr Tanya Selak chairing which is all about a new paper on the safety of day-case paediatric tonsillectomy in England from the Getting It Right First Time programme. You can tune in by coming to @Anaes_Journal (or following this link) at 1200 BST on Friday 17^th September!

See you then!

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

In the UK, COVID-19 continues to impact upon the provision of all NHS services. This new serial service evaluation from Kursumovic et al. was able to measure and report on the impact on anaesthesia and critical care services in the UK between October 2020 and January 2021. Interestingly, this study made use of the NAP6 infrastructure, as the project was on hold during the pandemic. During this time, one in eight anaesthetic staff were not available for work and one in five operating theatres were closed, with activity falling significantly in those theatres that were open. During January 2021, the system was largely overwhelmed. Redeployed anaesthesia staff increased the critical care workforce by 125% and three quarters of critical care units were expanded. This all helps us to work out what happened which will hopefully mean we are better placed to respond to future pandemics. 

The survey focusses on three key factors – staff, space and stuff. In the accompanying editorial, Wong et al. argue that staff are our most valuable asset. We have all and will continue to work in new ways because of the pandemic, and there has been much focus on ways in which to combat the effects of workforce burnout. It nevertheless remains to be seen whether recommendations such as better provision of mental health support, improved pay, combating workplace bullying and delivering better workforce planning will be implemented. The arguments provided by Wong et al. are compelling and their thoughts seemed to resonate with our followers over on Twitter. For this workforce will also be the one that looks after our nation’s health for years to come. 

There have been numerous observational studies reporting on outcomes in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care. This new systematic review and meta-analysis from Taylor et al. finds that increasing age, pre-existing comorbidities and greater severity of illness are associated with mortality in patients admitted to ICU with COVID-19, but male sex and increasing BMI were not. This surprising finding attracted a lot of attention on social media and with nine news outlets also featuring the study. In the associated editorial from Cook and Comporota, state the case for core datasets for critical care outcomes from COVID-19. These will not only be of benefit for this and other pandemics, but also for the major health challenges that affect ICUs across the world. 

How best to pre-oxygenate patients prior to rapid sequence intubation (RSI) continues to be debated. This new randomised controlled trial from Sjöblom aimed to compare high-flow nasal oxygen with tight-fitting facemask pre-oxygenation during RSI in patients undergoing emergency surgery in several different centres. They showed no difference in the number of patients desaturating < 93% between pre-oxygenation using high-flow nasal oxygen vs. tight facemask. Lam and Irwin ask, is high-flow nasal oxygen worth the hassle? It does seem to be safe, but it is more expensive, time-consuming, technically more difficult to prepare does not appear to have any major benefits over other accepted techniques. We need more research in specific patient groups such as obese, pregnant and high-risk patients more generally. Also this month, Sud et al. compare gastric gas volumes measured by computed tomography between high-flow nasal oxygen therapy and conventional facemask ventilation. They find that high-flow nasal oxygen does not increase gastric gas volume in fasted patients undergoing induction of anaesthesia in the supine position, which adds further support to the safety of its use. 

Every year, > 130k patients survive an episode of critical illness in the UK. Focus on this patient group will no doubt increase as the pandemic hopefully eases. This new mixed-methods systematic review from Bench et al. finds that fatigue is common in critical illness survivors, with a prevalence ranging from 13.8–80.9%. This rises around one month following ICU discharge and improves over time but seldom resolves completely. There is a paucity of evidence on how best it should be detected or managed. In the accompanying editorial, Hosey et al. argue that we must help ICU survivors find new ways to live with chronic symptoms, with clinicians and researchers striving to design and evaluate multidisciplinary and comprehensive treatment modalities that support recovery from the ICU to home. 

The new Association of Anaesthetists 2021 recommendations for standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery have now been cited 7 times and attracts an Altmetric score of > 250. Areas of controversy include new guidance on: capnography; transfer; quantitative neuromuscular monitoring; processed electroencephalogram monitoring; and electronic record keeping. They feature in this month’s issue, and they are essential reading for all. Elsewhere we have: a randomised controlled trial of deep serratus anterior plane block vs. sham block in ambulatory breast cancer surgery; a narrative review of adjunctive treatments for the management of septic shock; a systematic review of the association between intra-operative cardiac arrest and country Human Development Index status; an evaluation of group teaching before surgery (Fit-4-Surgery School); and a feasibility and pilot study of volatile anaesthesia and peri-operative outcomes related to cancer. 

Many of this month’s articles have an associated podcast which you can listen to here. It also features the most recent podcast which looks at the new COVIDSurg international prospective cohort study on the effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complication rates. The paper remains free to access forever!

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

Dexamethasone is a drug that has many uses for a range of indications and patient groups. This month, the results of the STRIDE randomised controlled feasibility trial are reported. Kluger et al. recruited 79 participants with hip fracture undergoing surgery and randomised to dexamethasone 20 mg or placebo. They found a number of factors that will help design and complete a larger definitive study. Although delirium was less severe in the dexamethasone group, there was no difference in terms of its incidence. We look forward to a larger definitive trial in the future which is evidently scientifically valid and feasible. In the accompanying editorial, Abraham and Neuman dissect the STRIDE study and draw their own conclusions. They highlight the need for future trials to consider the possible risks associated with steroids, such as postoperative infections. The important point is that this is an area that has not been well studied, and this trial means that trialists working in this area will be better equipped to provide the definitive evidence that we need.

The PROSPECT papers always receive a lot of attention on social media which is probably due to their pragmatic methods and clinically relevant suggestions. This new contribution is aimed at patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with seven core evidence-based recommendations. The key difference here is that most other guidelines focus on enhanced recovery or anaesthetic technique rather than the best analgesic regimen. In the accompanying editorial, Abdallah and McCartney list what’s old, what’s new and what continues to be missing. Will new iterations include items such as day case surgery, the approach to patients with chronic pain, second- or third-line strategies and novel blocks, not in widespread use at the time of this literature search? Time will tell.

During the first COVID-19 wave in the UK, the general anaesthesia rate for caesarean sections in the north-west decreased significantly. This new study analyses the impact of increased regional anaesthesia use during the pandemic on the decision-to-delivery interval and neonatal outcomes for category-1 caesarean sections. They conclude that the there was a small, clinically unimportant increase in decision-to-delivery interval for category-1 caesarean section during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Fig. 1). This arguably supports the safe use of regional anaesthesia for category-1 caesarean section except in those cases which warrant the most urgent delivery. Just what then is a clinically significant decision-delivery interval? Mike Kinsella sets out the evidence, the problem with general anaesthesia and considerations for rapid achievement of delivery under general anaesthesia for category-1 caesarean section with fetal compromise. He argues that 30 min, embedded in audit and clinical practice though it is, is too long for cases where there is fetal compromise. He calls for a new 20min target which should be seen as a new clinically-relevant standard. Do you agree? Let us know!

The 7th UK National Audit Project has now begun, and the aim will be to advance our knowledge and understanding of peri-operative cardiac arrests. This new article from Kane et al. lists the challenges faced, such as defining peri-operative cardiac arrest, determining the scope of study and conducting the project in the era of COVID-19. You can hear all about the issues raised in the editorial and much more by listening to the podcast, which is free! One area that has been studied extensively is myocardial injury following non-cardiac surgery and the influence of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC). This new 1-year follow-up from a randomised controlled trial from Ekeloef et al. finds that RIPC did not reduce the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events within 1 year of hip fracture surgery (Fig. 2). Looking at individual components of the primary outcome, the preventive effect of RIPC on myocardial infarction seems to hold for 1 year. 

This new paper from Maranhao et al. has been available on early view since late 2020 and has attracted a lot of attention on social media. They undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare spinal needles and their respective odds of post dural puncture headache. They find that the 26-G atraumatic spinal needle is the most likely needle to enable successful insertion while avoiding PDPH. Where this needle is not available, as seems to be the case in most institutions according to Twitter, they provide a rank order to help clinicians select the best among the available options. Whether an intrathecal catheter for labour analgesia reduces the incidence of post-dural puncture headache or need for an epidural blood patch has been questioned. Orbach-Zinger et al. report their literature review and clinical management recommendations for intrathecal catheter use after accidental dural puncture in obstetric patients. Although such a catheter might provide effective and satisfactory labour analgesia, there are several important complications that usually negate their use. Eight clear recommendations are provided.

Elsewhere we have: a description of the new Anaesthesia Case Report (ACRE) checklist; a prospective study of persistent headache and low back pain following accidental dural puncture in the obstetric population; a retrospective study of labour epidural case volume and the rate of accidental dural puncture; and a narrative review of routinely collected data and patient-centred research in anaesthesia and peri-operative care. 

Last but by no means least is the penultimate Contemporary Classic article in the series which tackles the 2010s. Kumar et al. have picked a paper from Blanco et al. from 2013 which was the first to describe the serratus plane block. They discuss the identification of new potential sono-anatomic targets, undertaking exploratory studies and translating this pioneering research into clinical practice. They argue the work from Blanco et al. is a classic because it taught us important lessons about how to introduce a novel and potentially useful fascial plane block into clinical practice. It also greatly influenced the expansion in ultrasound-guided block techniques, which increases the likelihood that all surgical patients may one day have access to regional anaesthesia as part of their peri-operative pain management.

Congratulations to our new trainee fellow, Dr Cara Hughes! Cara is a clinical research fellow based at the Academic Unit of Anaesthesia at the University of Glasgow. We look forward to welcoming her to the team!

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on access to healthcare services, including anaesthesia and surgery. What is the best way to proceed for those patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2? In this issue of Anaesthesia, El-Boghdadly et al. outline key principles in the timing of surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection in a multidisciplinary consensus statement supported by the Association of Anaesthetists, the Centre for Peri-operative Care, the Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Specific focus is afforded to symptoms and severity of disease, comorbid and functional status, priority and complexity of surgery, and anaesthetic technique. The consensus statement is informed by recent studies, such as the international prospective cohort study of the COVIDSurg and GlobalSurg Collaboratives, which was published in Anaesthesia, and which quantified mortality risk in patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection based on the time interval between diagnosis and surgery. An accompanying editorial by Price et al. addresses the curtailment in surgical activity caused by the pandemic and its effects on the workforce, both in terms of reallocation of duties and psychological consequences. A further editorial by Stuart White asks whether a role exists for mandatory psychological assessment of those working in anaesthesia and critical care medicine during the pandemic. The impact of this pandemic on patients, healthcare workers and broader society will extend long beyond its end. 

Even in a world without COVID-19, access to safe and affordable surgical care in low- and middle-income countries can be erratic. Reliable data is essential for the evaluation and advancement of peri-operative care in these regions. In this issue, the Network for Peri-operative Critical Care reports on the establishment and initial output of an Ethiopian data registry that incorporated national surgery and quality indicators. There were 1748 care episodes in four hospitals recorded in the registry over a 12-month period, including data on anaesthetic adverse events and post-operative morbidity and mortality. In an accompanying editorial, Kluyts and Biccard discuss the role of peri-operative registries in improving the quality of care in low-resource environments and the challenges associated with their creation and interpretation.

The prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the commonest everyday challenges faced by anaesthetists. Weibel et al. publish an abridged Cochrane network meta-analysis of the drugs used for preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia (Fig. 1). Data are included from 585 trials and 97,516 participants, evaluating 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations, making this the most comprehensive, up to date review of the evidence in this area. An accompanying editorial by Collier and Smith places these findings in the context of current anaesthesia practices and the broader challenges faced in preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting. 

Figure 1 Network geometry of eligible comparisons for postoperative vomiting within 24 h after surgery. The thickness of the edges is proportional to the number of included studies comparing two treatments.

As researchers continue to investigate the exact risks and benefits of apnoeic oxygenation with high-flow nasal oxygen in anaesthesia, areas of uncertainty include its merits in the paediatric population and capacity for clearance of carbon dioxide. The ability of apnoeic oxygenation with high-flow nasal oxygen to clear carbon dioxide in adults was first postulated by Patel and Nouraei in this journal in 2014. This phenomenon has not been demonstrated in paediatric patients. In this issue, Riva et al. publish their transcutaneous evaluation of carbon dioxide elevations in apnoeic children weighing 10-15 kg by comparing two oxygen flow rates.  

Regional anaesthesia also features in this issue – from assessment of the needle manipulation of novices to the role of adjunctive agents in brachial plexus blockade. Chuan et al. report the results of their randomised controlled trial examining the potential role for visuospatial ability screening in learning ultrasound-guided regional techniques. The visuospatial ability of anaesthetists, as measured by their ability to identify similar three-dimensional objects from different perspectives, was hypothesised to correlate with their ability to perform ultrasound-guided needle manipulation, which is an essential component of regional anaesthesia performance. The needling times of 140 medical students during ultrasound-guided tasks are reported, after randomisation by visuospatial ability, with some participants receiving deliberate practice and others assigned to discovery learning. Meanwhile, Sehmbi et al. report their meta-analysis of 100 trials on supraclavicular brachial plexus block characteristics when dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine are administered as adjunctive agents. The authors evaluated the effects of these agents on sensory block, motor block and analgesic duration by comparing with control supraclavicular blocks that were performed without adjuncts. The route of administration of the agents (perineural or intravenous) was incorporated into their analysis.

The bleeding post-cardiac surgery patient is both a unique haematological challenge and a commonly faced problem in cardiac intensive care units. How best to identify and manage specific deficits in coagulation, and measure the response, remains a matter of ongoing debate. This issue features a pilot randomised controlled trial comparing the use of prothrombin complex concentrate and fresh frozen plasma in adult patients who required coagulation factor replacement for bleeding within 24-hours of cardiac surgery. Elsewhere, Kataife et al. evaluate the impact of the Haemostasis Traffic Light cognitive aid on clinician performance during simulated bleeding scenarios (Fig. 2).

Figure 2 Design of the Haemostasis Traffic Light. The five steps are described (0 to 4) from left to right. Each step has its rationale and an example of an intervention (dotted line) to show how the Haemostasis Traffic Light concept may be adapted to institutional coagulation management protocols.

The dose of oxytocin administered during elective caesarean delivery has reduced over the last two decades. In this issue, Peska et al. report the results of an oxytocin dose-finding study in obese women at elective caesarean delivery, using the biased coin up-down method. The primary outcome was uterine tone as assessed by the operating obstetrician two minutes after drug administration.

Finally, in this month’s Contemporary Classics series, revisiting some notable papers that have featured in Anaesthesia in celebration of its 75^th anniversary, Tim Cook, Ellen O’Sullivan and Fiona Kelly discuss the origins and impact of the 2004 Difficult Airway Society guidelines for the management of difficult tracheal intubation. To round off this issue, our popular Correspondence section has its reliable mixture of personal observations and insights along with commentary and debate surrounding recently published research in Anaesthesia.

We hope you enjoy the diverse range of topics featured in this month’s issue. Stay tuned to our twitter feed for daily updates on the journal’s articles, podcasts and live broadcasts!

• 

• 

Craig Lyons and Andrew Klein

This month, we are delighted to publish a new international prospective cohort study from the COVIDSurg and GlobalSURG collaboratives. It is now our best performing paper on social media, ever, with an Altmetric score of > 2400! They studied > 140k patients in 116 countries and concluded that the risks of postoperative morbidity and mortality are greatest if patients are operated within 6 weeks of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Fig. 1). Their work highlights how collaboration on an international stage such as this can give us the answers we need to clinically important questions that matter to hospitals, clinicians and patients. Their work has helped formulate new guidelines which have been implemented across the UK. In the accompanying editorial, Wijeysundera and Khadaroo take us through the complexity of asking when the safest time to operate on a patient with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is. They highlight the need for quality standards specifically tailored for these large multicentre collaborative studies. Provided that the research question, study design and team are strong and efficient, collaborative research is to be commended and must be continued.

We have several high-quality obstetric anaesthesia papers this month, as well as a podcast. First, Odor et al. present the findings from their multicentre prospective cohort study – the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients (DREAMY). Their main finding was that the incidence of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA) in obstetrics, assessed by using direct questioning, is almost three times higher than previously ascertained when relying on patient self‐reports: 1 in 256 (95%CI 149–500) vs. 1 in 1200 (95%CI 714–2500). There are many other nuggets of information here of relevance to all anaesthetists, and the paper has reignited the debate about choice of anaesthetic agents for obstetric general anaesthesia as well as a range of other topics. In the accompanying editorial, Palanisamy and Paech discuss these practice changes, the associated controversies and the possible consequences of the work by Odor et al. They argue the most significant contribution is the association between AAGA and post-traumatic stress disorder, the incidence of which is broadly in keeping with previous reports in other patient populations. Therefore, early recognition of AAGA and subsequent intervention is more important now than ever.

Second, this new randomised controlled trial from Chapron et al. finds that spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric prilocaine induced a shorter and more reliable motor block compared with bupivacaine, administered in spinal anaesthesia for non‐breastfeeding women with uncomplicated pregnancies and undergoing elective caesarean section. The suggestion that prilocaine might be more useful than bupivacaine in this setting is sure to cause, at the very least, some raised eyebrows in the obstetric anaesthetic community. Carvalho and Sultan provide their analysis and conclude that if hyperbaric prilocaine is ever contemplated for routine use, it should be used in conjunction with a combined spinal‐epidural technique. This is so that if the surgical duration exceeded the duration of spinal anaesthesia, the epidural could be dosed to maintain anaesthesia and reduce the need for conversion to general anaesthesia. Third, Heesen et al. discuss the use of noradrenaline as compared with phenylephrine in women undergoing spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. They highlight that the effect of noradrenaline on fetal acidosis is still unclear, but in the best case scenario it is no worse than phenylephrine. Some excellent suggestions are provided for those undertaking studies in this area. 

Sickle cell disease is one of the most common serious inherited single gene disorders worldwide and has a major impact on the health and life expectancy of the individual. These new Association of Anaesthetists guidelines were developed to highlight advances in peri‐operative care of patients with sickle cell disease, provide anaesthetists with a better understanding of sickle cell disease and to make recommendations about the organisation of care for this complex group of patients. Twelve key recommendations are provided, which are included in the infographic below. 

Elsewhere we have: a systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional landmark vs. preprocedural ultrasound for neuraxial analgesia and anaesthesia in obstetrics; a systematic review of reporting quality for anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials; a systematic review of melatonin for anaesthetic indications in paediatric patients; a pilot and feasibility study of postoperative wrist worn accelerometers; and an observational study of exploring the limits of prolonged apnoea with high-flow nasal oxygen. 

Finally, this new paper from Matt Wiles has been extremely popular on social media. He was tasked with taking on a classic paper from the 1990s and chose an article by Nolan and Wilson about tracheal intubation in patients with spinal injuries. Is manual in-line stabilisation (MILS) during tracheal intubation effective protection or harmful dogma? He presents a persuasive argument against, and urges clinicians to reflect on why they continue to choose to use MILS during tracheal intubation – is this for patient benefit, for protection against later criticism or medicolegal claims, or because ‘we have always done it this way’? Do you disagree? Send us your thoughts in a letter! We might just publish it and get Matt to respond.

Do you want to be our next journal fellow? The deadline for our next post is approaching, so make sure you start working on your application now. Previous fellows include Helen Laycock, Mike Charlesworth and Kariem El-Boghdadly, who are now all fully fledged Editors!

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

Between the application of artificial intelligence to regional anaesthesia, the use of virtual reality in pain management and a modern interpretation of the iron lung for respiratory failure, the May issue of Anaesthesia examines some modern solutions to longstanding challenges.

Bowness, El-Boghdadly and Burckett-St Laurent discuss the role artificial intelligence for image interpretation in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. The identification of anatomy under ultrasound is an essential step in the performance of regional blockade. Challenges with anatomical recognition and needle guidance limit the number of clinicians willing to learn or perform regional techniques. Might artificial intelligence become reliable to the point of recognising and highlighting different anatomical structures, whilst accounting for patient anatomical differences and proceduralist variability in image acquisition? Additionally, could this technology propose optimal needle trajectories to reduce the likelihood of nerve injury or intravascular injection of local anaesthetic?

The application of virtual reality as a non-pharmacological pain therapy is reviewed by Chuan et al. in this issue. They discuss its potential role in acute and chronic pain scenarios, addressing the impact of their varied aetiological and biopsychosocial components on the efficacy of these programmes. In an accompanying editorial, Small and Laycock examine the broader application of virtual reality systems within healthcare along with the complexities involved in their evaluation in clinical trials. 

The familiarity of many clinicians with the ‘iron lung’ relates solely to their readings on polio epidemics. Improvements in positive-pressure ventilation technology in the mid-20^th century resulted in a decline in the use of negative-pressure ventilation. But could the positive be turned into a negative once more with a comeback for the iron lung? This issue of the journal publishes an evaluation of the Exovent, a torso-only negative-pressure ventilatory support system, in volunteers. The device aims to generate continuous negative extra-thoracic pressure in order to increase functional residual capacity and avoid patient-ventilator dyssynchrony. The risk-benefit profile of the Exovent in clinical practice remains unknown at this time. 

A new PROSPECT guideline on post-operative pain management for elective caesarean section features in the May issue of Anaesthesia. The guideline is based on analysis of 145 studies and addresses systemic non-opioid and opioid analgesics, neuraxial adjuvants, local and regional techniques, and surgical interventions. In an accompanying editorial, Landau and Richebé discuss procedure-specific and patient-specific approaches to pain management. They highlight procedure-related variations in caesarean delivery, such as parity, plurality and prior history. Patient-specific circumstances, such as substance abuse, mental health issues and patient expectations, also influence pain outcomes. The authors therefore advise caution against the indiscriminate application of such guidelines and encourage more comprehensive algorithmic approaches to address individual needs. 

Recent studies on peri-operative iron supplementation have raised as many questions as answers on this practice. This journal issue features two original research articles on the pre-operative use of intravenous iron in anaemic patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Both studies (one retrospective and one prospective observational) examine the impact of this intervention on haemoglobin level, transfusion rate and other complications. Meanwhile, Wittenmeier et al report the results of their prospective study on the detection of pre-operative anaemia in elective surgical patients using non-invasive haemoglobin measurement. The authors address the potential implications of these devices during pre-operative anaesthetic evaluation along with their limitations in determining when to administer a blood transfusion.

Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses are only as good as their component trials enable them to be – working back to the methodological robustness of each study and individual patient enrolment. In this issue, an editorial by Kirkham and Taljaard discusses the role of trial sequential analysis in enabling us to draw firmer conclusions on existing literature and project future research needs. They use a recent meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis by Desai et al. on the role of epidural vs transverse abdominis plane block for abdominal surgery as a backdrop for their discussion. Ultimately, the conclusion of a meta-analysis traces its way back into the hands of every researcher involved in the included studies, each generating the bigger picture one paint stroke at a time.  

COVID-related research continues to feature prominently in Anaesthesia. Cook and Roberts model the impact of vaccination by priority group on UK deaths, hospital admissions and intensive care admissions from this illness. Meanwhile, Clinkard et al. evaluate the filtration efficacy of N95 respirators and modified snorkel masks in healthcare workers.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a co-morbidity frequently encountered by anaesthetists and an independent risk factor for peri-operative morbidity and mortality. In this issue, a review by Lee et al. provides advice on pre-operative optimisation of patients with this condition. Specific focus is afforded to pulmonary rehabilitation, smoking cessation, symptom and pharmacological optimization, nutrition and lung volume reduction procedures. The authors also discuss unmet research needs in this area and the potential role for a peri-operative disease pathway for the delivery of holistic care to patients with this potentially debilitating condition. 

In our Contemporary Classics series, commemorating 75 years of Anaesthesia, Pearce, Duggan and El-Boghdadly ask whether Cormac and Lehane grading has stood the test of time. They examine the origins of this classification system, its subsequent modifications, and its role going forward, particularly as use of videolaryngoscopy increases.

And… hot off the press! The May issue of Anaesthesia contains the malignant hyperthermia 2020 guideline from the Association of Anaesthetists. There have been a number of developments in the diagnosis and management of malignant hyperthermia since the last iteration of this guideline was published in 2011. Guidance is provided for anaesthetists beyond the acute period of the reaction, including critical care management, patient and family counselling, and referral for investigation. Patient populations at increased risk of developing malignant hyperthermia under anaesthesia are also discussed. You can listen to the podcast with Professor Phil Hopkins and patient, Connor Phillips, here!

All this, plus our popular correspondence section, is now available in the May issue of Anaesthesia. Please keep an eye on the journal’s twitter feed for live broadcasts, podcast releases and social media discussion surrounding our latest journal articles!

• 

• 

Craig Lyons and Andrew Klein 

Detecting false data presents reviewers, editors, journals, publishers and readers with many problems. Manuscripts alone, which are submitted to journals for peer review and consideration for publication, are seldom enough to make an informed judgment on the truth of included data. In this new study, John Carlisle reports his analysis of 153 randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia for which he requested authors supply individual patient data spreadsheets (Fig. 1). He detected false data in almost half of these spreadsheets, which likely translates to around a quarter of all randomised controlled trials submitted to the journal. He concludes that journals and editors should ask more questions about data on which submitted trials are based, rather than relying on summary statistics alone, which may not contain vital clues about data trustworthiness. In the accompanying editorial, Ioannidis looks at the nature and scale of the problem, as well as what can be done. The solutions are far from perfect, but include: more widespread use of individual patient data spreadsheets during review processes; a new focus on methods to interrogate other designs, such as observational studies; incorporation of the likelihood of false data into the design of systematic reviews; and promotion of transparency by funders and regulators. 

We have a number of important papers this month that each have an associated podcast, which can be accessed for free on Podbean, Spotify and iTunes. First, Odor et al. report the results from DREAMY in relation to general anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England. They find that propofol and, to a lesser extent, rocuronium are now being used more frequently. The associated editorial from Wilson and Wrench suggests the UK is currently lagging the adoption of change, rather than leading it. Cook and Farrar, in our second most popular paper on social media, ever, discuss everything to do with COVID-19 vaccines, including the many implications for peri-operative practice as well as other wider issues for society (Fig. 2).

We were also delighted to publish this new consensus statement on the prevention of opioid-related harm in adult surgical patients by Levy et al. The document allows for all healthcare professionals to be aware of the risks and benefits of peri-operative opioid use, which will hopefully lead to better informed patients.

In 2008, it was predicted that there would be no publications in relation to peri-operative practice from UK authors by the year 2020. This new analysis from Ratnayake et al. provides and updated perspective, with ~124 papers per year published by UK groups in indexed journals. A worrying feature is the predominance of secondary research (for example, reviews) as compared with primary research (for example, clinical trials). Overall, the trend identified by Feneck et al. in 2008 seems to have been halted but not yet reversed. Paul Myles offers some insights and reminds us that the studies by Feneck et al. and Ratanayake et al. provide a UK-centric view, and that most peri-operative medicine journals across the world have improved in quality over the last ten years. Moreover, there are now more many more studies in high-impact general medical journals led or contributed to by UK anaesthetists, which is great progress. Yeung and Shelton argue that academic anaesthesia does not belong to the elite, as it belongs to us all. Perhaps where the real work is needed is advocacy, to encourage recognition of how and why research is fundamental to high-quality patient care. 

Each month, we are taking a look back through our archives at important papers from each decade, since the first issue of the journal was published 75 years ago. This month, Laycock and Harrop-Griffiths tackle the assessment of pain with reference to a key paper from 1976 by Revill et al. Note that the ‘assessment’ of pain and not its measurement is discussed, the importance of which is thoughtfully discussed. They argue that what perhaps is even more important than the assessment or measurement of pain is how we respond to its occurrence. 

Elsewhere we have: a systematic review of intra-articular infiltration analgesia for arthroscopic surgery; two prospective observational studies of alternative devices for postoperative patient temperature measurement;an ethnographic study of decision-making around admission to intensive care; and a feasibility study of the effect of advanced recovery room care on postoperative outcomes in moderate-risk surgical patients. 

• 

• 

Finally, we are looking for new Assistant Editors (deadline March 31^st) and a new Trainee Fellow (deadline May 31^st). Both adverts and all the details are provided here, on the journal webpage, on Twitter, in this month’s Anaesthesia News and via the Association of Anaesthetists. Join us!

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

The phone rings. The pager bleeps. A colleague drops into the theatre to talk. Another message passes over the intercom. Each day, we run a gauntlet of distractions in the operating theatre. In the March issue of Anaesthesia, Van Harten et al. report their observations of 64 staff members lasting 148 hours in an effort at quantifying case-irrelevant verbal communication, smartphone usage and other distractions in the operating theatre. Qualitative research was performed with the collation of vignettes and by obtaining the perspective of participants on the importance of disruptions. In the accompanying editorial by Shelton and Smith, the double-edged sword of the smartphone in daily practice is discussed. Used optimally, the device may be more of an enabler of safety than a threat to it. The outcome is in our own hands – literally.

How has this pandemic affected our learning as anaesthetists? Fawcett et al. look at the challenges faced in the dissemination of scientific knowledge during the COVID pandemic. During the past 12 months, the need for timely peer review and release of educational materials has coincided with a threat to some of our most trusted methods of accessing them. From challenges with journal printing and distribution to the cancellation of scientific meetings, novel and additional efforts have had to be made to place the journal’s offerings in the hands of its readers. Have we found better ways of doing things that should remain long-term? This journal has increased its use of twitter and podcasting. More recently, we have added live broadcasting to our armamentarium. Our enhanced social media presence was accelerated by the pandemic but we do not envisage this as a short-term effort. Instead, we expect twitter, podcasting and live broadcasting to become permanent fixtures of the broader conversation with our readers. 

COVID-related research continues to feature prominently in this journal. At the onset of the pandemic, concerns regarding occupational COVID-19 risk were greatest for anaesthesia and intensive care staff, and in particular their proximity to aerosol-generating procedures and patients utilising respiratory support devices. An editorial by Cook and Lennane explores this area by comparing expected and actual mortality and the implications of the findings on staff and patient safety. This pandemic has resulted in a re-appraisal of the risks of benefits of regional and general anaesthesia in some scenarios. Bhatia et al. examine the impact of COVID-19 on general anaesthesia rates for caesarean section across six maternity units in the north-west of England and hypothesise as to why this pandemic could influence our decision-making processes. With respect to critically ill patients with COVID-19, this journal issue contains two retrospective reviews on the impact of renal impairment and of high-intensity pharmacological thromboprophylaxis on clinical outcomes in this setting. As each month passes, our COVID-19 knowledge base grows, but as some uncertainties resolve, others arise.

Irrespective of any pandemic, the access of surgical patients to critical care units for postoperative care has always faced challenges. Understanding them has perhaps never been more important. Which patients should be admitted to critical care post-operatively and who should be managed at ward level? What are the main benefits of peri-operative critical care admission and what are the challenges faced in the provision of this care?

The answers to these questions were amongst those sought as part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the survey responses of 10,383 clinicians from 237 hospitals across the UK are reported in this month’s issue of the journal. The decision-making process is complex and coloured by experience. Clinicians face real pressures to deviate from their preferred care pathways when the ability to perform surgery is threatened by limitations in critical care provision. 

Perhaps second only to sugammadex, dexmedetomidine is the pharmacological agent that has seen greatest acceleration of use in anaesthesia practice this past decade. In a previous issue of Anaesthesia, Lee-Archer et al. examined the impact of dexmedetomidine on post-operative behavioural changes in children. An accompanying editorial by Bailey explores the broader evidence base for this alpha-2 agonist in paediatric anaesthesia, placed in the context of real-world considerations such as cost and pharmacological alternatives. Should dexmedetomidine become a staple of the day-case surgery routine or is the evidence base lacking for further expansions in use?

Regional anaesthesia – old and new – also features in this issue. In celebration of the 75^th anniversary of Anaesthesia, we continue our look at some of the journal’s seminal papers in our Contemporary Classics series. This month, we have selected an article from the 1960s – an analysis by Dawkins on epidural complications. In their review, Collins and Yentis explore how both neuraxial blockade and the make-up of scientific publications have changed over the last fifty years. Whether it relates to indications, technique, equipment, dosing or awareness of complications, clinical practice has certainly evolved! Meanwhile, two systematic reviews and meta-analyses examine the evidence for fascial plane blocks. El-Boghdadly et al. compare quadratus lumborum and transversus abdominis plan blocks for caesarean delivery, while Leong et al. examine the efficacy of erector spinae blocks in breast surgery. 

Clotting is another area of focus in this month’s journal. What is the role of four factor prothrombin complex concentrate in haemostatic resuscitation during surgical procedures? Members of the Transfusion and Haemostasis Subcommittee of the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology summarise the available evidence for dosing, efficacy, drug safety and monitoring in different scenarios and issue a consensus statement on the use of this agent. Meanwhile, Oberladstätter et al pubish a prospective observational study of the rapid detection of clinically relevant plasma direct oral anticoagulant levels following acute traumatic injury.

Elsewhere, Blackburn et al. compare CT scans and ruler measurements of three commonly used manikins with human CT scans. The translatability of airway manikin research into clinical practice has always been a contentious matter, with the most fundamental concern being the anatomic accuracy of manikins. Also, Trentino et al. perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the screening and treatment of suboptimal iron stores in elective colorectal surgery. The great iron debate rolls on!

Keep an eye on our twitter feed for the latest journal article releases, links to new podcasts and future live broadcasts. We hope you’ll find them to be positive distractions!

• 

• 

Craig Lyons and Andrew Klein

In the February issue, we are delighted to publish the articles by Brown et al., Dhillon et al. and the associated editorial by Nestor et al. Brown et al. report that both tracheal intubation and extubation sequences produce less aerosol than voluntary coughing (Fig. 1). On the other hand, Dhillon et al. find that tracheal intubation and extubation are aerosol generating procedures (Fig. 1) Who is right? The answer is probably that neither group is right or wrong, and differences in the experimental methods used might instead account for their different findings. This is all summed up nicely in the associated editorial and podcast.

When we use local anaesthetic agents in clinical practice, we usually go to great lengths to avoid local anaesthetic systemic toxicity, so injecting local anaesthetic agents intravenously might seem counterintuitive. That said, any anaesthetist who has used intravenous lidocaine as part of their peri-operative analgesic strategy will no doubt stand by the safety and efficacy of its use. This new guideline is the first of its kind, which is surprising as the use of intravenous lidocaine for analgesia seems to be widespread. It will hopefully provide a framework for hospitals and departments to write their own protocols, as well as standardising practices more generally. In the associated editorial, Pandit and McGuire discuss the evidence as well as the issues raised by using intravenous lidocaine as an unlicensed medication. They instead provide ‘a license to stop an infusion’ if a clinician encounters a patient in their care and they do not believe the drug to be efficacious. You can listen to both groups of authors debate the arguments for and against on the relevant podcast.

Which is best for patients with hip fracture, spinal or general anaesthesia? Thankfully, and although anaesthetists might always see this as an interesting talking point, guidance and expert opinion have moved beyond the debate of superiority of one mode of anaesthesia over another. Instead, and 11 years since the last iteration, this new guideline shifts focus onto areas such as anaemia, anticoagulation and getting patients to theatre in a timely manner. Direct oral anticoagulant agents seem to be the new major issue facing anaesthetists, and many will be pleased to see something on this topic written down. Again, the paper also has an excellent podcast where you can listen to Iain Moppett and Ciara O’Donnell take us through all the peri-operative considerations and controversies.

Constipation is common in critically unwell adults and this new study from Launey et al. suggests some associations and clinical implications. The associated editorial from Charlesworth and Ashworth discusses the many limitations of research in this area more generally and compares it with something more widely studied and understood – delirium. On the back of the recent regional anaesthesia supplement, Mariano, El-Boghdadly and Ilfeld present their thoughts this month in an editorial about postoperative pain trajectories and personalised pain medicine. They argue that If we knew the typical pain trajectories and patterns of postoperative pain regression and resolution for common surgical procedures, the data could guide our approaches to regional analgesia. Is it time to put the horse back in front of the cart? We think so! Few diseases in healthcare are as controversial and emotive as obesity. This new editorial from Selak and Selak has generated a lot of interest on social media as well as several items of correspondence. They argue that an empathetic approach to all patients, including those with obesity, may in fact be more patient‐centred and also protect against litigation.

Last but by no means least we have three excellent reviews this month which have all been extremely popular on Twitter. First, this airway management guidance document for the endemic phase of COVID-19 sensibly points out that current evidence does not support or necessitate dramatic changes to choices for anaesthetic airway management (Fig. 2). Second, this systematic review from Koyuncu et al. finds that trials on postoperative pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty reported numerous outcome measures with heterogeneous timing of outcome assessment. Finally, Mallama et al. find that the peri‐operative route of paracetamol administration, intravenous vs. oral, did not affect pain or any other postoperative outcome. There was simply insufficient evidence to exclude important clinical effects and the quality of evidence overall was poor.

To celebrate our 75^th anniversary each month there will be a brand-new article looking at a seminal paper from a different decade. This month it is the 1950s, and Aitkenhead and Irwin take on the topic of deaths associated with anaesthesia. A striking feature is the difference between anaesthetic practice during the study period and modern anaesthesia. More than 10% of the deaths were categorised as “circulatory failure immediately following intravenous barbiturate injection”. You can read the full paper for free, forever! Elsewhere we have: a study of ultrasound-activated needle tip tracker technology; a randomised controlled trial of intra-operative methadone vs. morphine on quality of recovery following laparoscopic gastroplasty; and a study looking at the effect of intra-operative intravenous lidocaine on opioid consumption after bariatric surgery. You can also check out what is new in Anaesthesia Reports, who recently advertised for a new Executive Editor, by going over to their homepage or Twitter account. 

We have recently published five live broadcasts, with topics including COVID-19 vaccines, regional anaesthesia, obstetric anaesthesia and critical care outcomes. We plan to keep refining these events and if you have any feedback for us, please let us know! In total, these have now received nearly 30k views!

Make sure you also check this new special issue of COVID-19 correspondence that was published just last week.

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

Since 2009, Anaesthesia has published annual special issues focusing on novel and clinically-important topics in peri-operative medicine, critical care and pain. This year, for the first time, we are revisiting a subject that was previously featured in 2009: regional anaesthesia. This is an acknowledgement, not only of widespread public interest, but also the fundamental importance of this field in modern anaesthetic practice, and the pace of innovation in recent years. The special issue was launched on 11 January 2021 with another first: a live video discussion involving 15 of the authors to give readers  their personal insights into the key concepts in each paper (see here and here).

The accompanying editorial highlights what we believe is the next frontier: increasing patient access to safe and effective regional anaesthesia. The evolution of regional anaesthesia is marked by multiple pivotal innovations that have driven its rise in popularity within our specialty (Fig. 1). These have transformed it from an arcane art practiced only by enthusiasts to a core skillset taught to all trainees. This, however, has also been accompanied by an increased complexity in scope that threatens to overwhelm the general practitioner. There is thus a need to refine, and even simplify, our techniques to maximise provider uptake and in turn, patient benefit. 

Four key themes run through the supplement: safety, efficacy, quality and innovation.

Safety

Nerve localisation has traditionally been based on landmark or peripheral nerve stimulator-guided techniques. Not surprisingly, this has declined in recent years with the advent of ultrasound-guided approaches. However, rather than abandoning the use of nerve stimulation entirely, Dr Gadsden recommends that we reframe its purpose. Instead of using it to tell us when we are ‘close enough’ (a tool for efficacy), we should use it in combination with ultrasound visualisation of the needle tip to tell us when we are ‘too close’ (a tool for safety). As he states in a clever analogy, why choose between seatbelts or airbags when you can have both?

Macfarlane et al. delve further into the safety of regional anaesthesia, providing an up-to-date understanding of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). This is still a highly-relevant complication even in the era of ultrasound-guidance, and there have been important changes in the typical clinical presentation thanks to the current enthusiasm for fascial plane blocks, intravenous lidocaine infusions and high-dose local anaesthetic infiltration techniques by non-anaesthetists. The authors highlight the considerations pertinent to modern anaesthetic practice and also describe a management algorithm that incorporates technique- and patient-related risk factors (Fig. 2). We would consider this paper essential reading for any clinician using local anaesthetics in their practice.

A final paper focusing on safety comes from Levy and Lirk, who describe the challenges and considerations for regional anaesthesia in patients with diabetes. Key characteristics of this patient population, include a higher current threshold for peripheral nerve stimulation; a tendency to prolonged conduction blockade; and lower local anaesthetic dose requirements. There is also concern over a higher risk of infection with both central and peripheral nerve blocks, emphasising the need for strict adherence to aseptic precautions.

Efficacy

The contributions of regional anaesthesia to improved care in specific patient populations is highlighted in several articles. Regional anaesthesia has been relatively under-utilised in paediatric practice, but several factors have driven a recent resurgence, including concerns over the effects of general anesthesia on cognitive development in younger children. Heydinger et al. also point to several innovations that have improved efficacy in this setting, including fascial plane techniques such as quadratus lumborum and erector spinae plane blocks. 

In contrast, regional anaesthesia is well-established in the obstetric setting, but there continues to be debate over the role of fascial plane blocks versus intrathecal opioids in post-caesarean analgesia.  Sultan et al.summarise the latest evidence and offer suggestions on how we can rationally incorporate peripheral nerve blocks into our daily practice. 

In another article, Dockrell and Buggy describe the current role of regional anaesthesia within the context of onco-anaesthesia. The pathophysiology of cancer recurrence is incredibly complex and multi-faceted, which makes it difficult to tease out the specific contribution of any one factor in peri-operative care. The evidence is just starting to accumulate and, in the meantime,, the authors point to the other advantages that regional anaesthesia may have on enhancing patient recovery and make a good case for its continued investigation and use.

Regional anaesthesia may also have an impact on chronic postoperative pain, a condition that affects between 5–50% of patients. Like cancer recurrence, the aetiology of chronic postoperative pain is complex and incompletely understood (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, as Chen et al. point out, regional anaesthesia remains an essential component of the “multimodal analgesic toolbox”. Procedure, patient or technique-specific approaches to peri-operative care may be required to have a real impact, but further evidence is needed before definitive recommendations can be made.

Quality

One of the challenges of regional anaesthesia is determining its overall benefit to healthcare. Johnston and Turbitt argue that successful regional anaesthesia should be judged in four domains : patient‐centred, population‐centred, healthcare‐centred and training‐centred outcomes. Each of these contain several metrics that must be quantified, analysed and improved upon for patient benefit. This landmark paper serves to refocus our exploration of regional anaesthesia on outcomes that matter, with implications for both research activity and clinical implementation.

With respect to healthcare- and population-centred outcomes, Hamilton et al. report the results of a systematic review of the quality indicators that have been used in regional anaesthesia studies. Using a Donabedian framework, they sought structure (administrative settings supporting care provision), process (the act of providing care) and outcome (patient recovery, restoration of function or survival) indicators. Predictably, the latter was most commonly reported, with only 6% and 18% of studies reporting structure or process indicators, respectively.

The importance of imparting regional anaesthesia skills to all trainees has already been mentioned. Ramlogan et al. highlight contemporary training methods in regional anaesthesia, in particular the use of modern technologies such as web-based learning, wearable devices and virtual reality systems. The effectiveness of these novel methods must be tracked using the appropriate training-centred outcomes.

Finally, McCombe and Bogod tackle the challenging subject of risk, consent and complications in regional anaesthesia. The significance of how we communicate risk is described, and how this communication leads to appropriate and legally sound consent, particularly in the post-Montgomery era.

Innovations

Both clinical and technological innovations share the spotlight in this issue. One of the foremost clinical innovations in recent years is the development of chest wall blocks. The current state of the art and future directions for this class of blocks are summarised by Chin et al. Pharmacological adjuncts for peripheral and central neuraxial blocks have also been an area of intense clinical and research interest. Desai et al. conduct a deep dive into these adjuncts that among other things, may leave many readers convinced that intravenous dexamethasone has effects beyond anti-emesis and therapy for COVID-19. 

The rapid pace of technological advancement and its application to regional anaesthesia are described in a complementary pair of articles. McKendrick et al. provide fascinating insights on how artificial intelligence and robotics will not only support clinical practice but potentially be the standard of practice in their own right. Finally, safe and successful regional anaesthesia has been described as primarily a matter of “getting the right drug into the right place”. Dr McLeod describes the exciting prospects for solving this perennial problem with technologically-enhanced needle-tip tracking  in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia.

Conclusion

The papers in this special issue provide a broad overview of the current state of regional anaesthesia. The hope is that all anaesthetists, and not just the enthusiasts, will find value in the content. More importantly, we hope that it will spur the continued expansion in provision of regional anaesthesia to our patients. There is a tremendous opportunity to improve delivery of healthcare and patient outcome, and we invite readers to join us as we take the next step forward on the path to regional anaesthesia excellence and access for all.

• 

Ki-Jinn Chin, Kariem El-Boghdadly and Edward R. Mariano