The feasibility of bispectral imaging photoplethysmography (iPPG) system for clinical assessment of cutaneous microcirculation at two different depths is proposed. The iPPG system has been developed and evaluated for in vivo conditions during various tests: (1) topical application of vasodilatory liniment on the skin, (2) skin local heating, (3) arterial occlusion, and (4) regional anesthesia. The device has been validated by the measurements of a laser Doppler imager (LDI) as a reference. The hardware comprises four bispectral light sources (530 and 810 nm) for uniform illumination of skin, video camera, and the control unit for triggering of the system. The PPG signals were calculated and the changes of perfusion index (PI) were obtained during the tests. The results showed convincing correlations for PI obtained by iPPG530 nm and LDI at (1) topical liniment (r = 0.98) and (2) heating (r = 0.98) tests. The topical liniment and local heating tests revealed good selectivity of the system for superficial microcirculation monitoring. It is confirmed that the iPPG system could be used for assessment of cutaneous perfusion at two different depths, morphologically and functionally different vascular networks, and thus utilized in clinics as a cost-effective alternative to the LDI.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and objectivesDocumentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia.MethodsFollowing the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement.ResultsSeventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29.ConclusionBy means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.

No abstract