BackgroundThere is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques.MethodsWe conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement.ResultsSixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified.ConclusionsHarmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.

There is no universally agreed set of anatomical structures that must be identified on ultrasound for the performance of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) techniques. This study aimed to produce standardized recommendations for core (minimum) structures to identify during seven basic blocks. An international consensus was sought through a modified Delphi process. A long-list of anatomical structures was refined through serial review by key opinion leaders in UGRA. All rounds were conducted remotely and anonymously to facilitate equal contribution of each participant. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for “orientation scanning” (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for the “block view” (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). Strong recommendations for inclusion were made if ≥75% of participants rated a structure as “definitely include” in any round. Weak recommendations were made if >50% of participants rated a structure as “definitely include” or “probably include” for all rounds (but the criterion for “strong recommendation” was never met). Thirty-six participants (94.7%) completed all rounds. 128 structures were reviewed; a “strong recommendation” is made for 35 structures on orientation scanning and 28 for the block view. A “weak recommendation” is made for 36 and 20 structures, respectively. This study provides recommendations on the core (minimum) set of anatomical structures to identify during ultrasound scanning for seven basic blocks in UGRA. They are intended to support consistent practice, empower non-experts using basic UGRA techniques, and standardize teaching and research.

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 ≥75% 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.

Purpose of reviewPain is one of the most feared and most common symptoms of cancer, experienced by 38-85% of patients. Pain in terminally ill cancer patients is a multidimensional experience caused by a diverse array of factors -cancer itself, its treatment or other causes. Studies have shown a high incidence of myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) in patients with cancer and the knowledge of myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) is important to address and manage existing pain, and to prevent the recurrence of pain. This review aims to summarize recent advances in interventions for managing MPS in patients with cancer. Recent findingsDatabase searches were conducted on MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Google Scholar to locate all studies published from inception until April 2019 using the keywords cancer pain, myofascial pain, TrPs with emphasis of any methodological quality that included interventions for MPS. MPS in advanced cancer patients are more commonly observed along with other cancer pains rather than independently with a prevalence of 11.9-48% in those patients diagnosed with cancer of head and neck and breast cancer.

No abstract