A comparison of strength for two continuous peripheral nerve block catheter dressings

Outcomes of Ambulatory Upper Extremity Surgery Patients Discharged Home with Perineural Catheters from a Veterans Health Administration Medical Center

Objective

The feasibility and safety of managing ambulatory continuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNB) in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients are currently unknown. We aimed to characterize the outcomes of a large VHA cohort of ambulatory upper extremity surgery patients discharged with CPNB and identify differences, if any, between catheter types.

Methods

With institutional review board approval, we reviewed data for consecutive patients from a single VHA hospital who had received ambulatory CPNB for upper extremity surgery from March 2011 to May 2017. The composite primary outcome was the occurrence of any catheter-related issue or additional all-cause health care intervention after discharge. Our secondary outcome was the ability to achieve regular daily telephone contact.

Results

Five hundred one patients formed the final sample. The incidence of any issue or health care intervention was 104/274 (38%) for infraclavicular, 58/185 (31%) for interscalene, and 14/42 (33%) for supraclavicular; these rates did not differ between groups. Higher ASA status was associated with greater odds of having any issue, whereas increasing age was slightly protective. Distance was associated with an increase in catheter-related issues (P < 0.01) but not additional health care interventions (P = 0.51). Only interscalene catheter patients (3%) reported breathing difficulty. Infraclavicular catheter patients had the most emergency room visits but rarely for CPNB issues. Consistent daily telephone contact was not achieved.

Conclusions

For VHA ambulatory CPNB patients, the combined incidence of a catheter-related issue or additional health care intervention was approximately one in three patients and did not differ by brachial plexus catheter type. Serious adverse events were generally uncommon.

Virtual reality distraction decreases routine intravenous sedation and procedure-related pain during preoperative adductor canal catheter insertion: a retrospective study

Background

Virtual reality (VR) distraction is a nonpharmacological method to prevent acute pain that has not yet been thoroughly explored for anesthesiology. We present our experience using VR distraction to decrease routine intravenous sedation for patients undergoing preoperative perineural catheter insertion.

Methods

This 1-month quality improvement project involved all elective unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty patients who received a preoperative adductor canal catheter. Clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. For the first half of the month, all patients received usual care; intravenous sedation was administered at the discretion of the regional anesthesiologist. For the second half of the month, patients were offered VR distraction with intravenous sedation upon request. The primary outcome was fentanyl dosage; other outcomes included midazolam dosage, procedure-related pain, procedural time, and blood pressure changes.

Results

Seven patients received usual care and seven used VR. In the VR group, 1/7 received intravenous sedation versus 6/7 who received usual care (P = 0.029). The fentanyl dose was lower (median [10th–90th percentiles]) in the VR group (0 [0–20] µg) versus the non-VR group (50 [30–100] µg; P = 0.008). Midazolam use was lower in the VR group (0 [0–0] mg) than in the non-VR group (1 [0–1] mg; P = 0.024). Procedure-related pain was lower in the VR group (1 [1–4] NRS) versus the non-VR group (3 [2–6] NRS; P = 0.032). There was no difference in other outcomes.

Conclusions

VR distraction may provide an effective nonpharmacological alternative to intravenous sedation for the ultrasound-guided placement of certain perineural catheters.