Compared with its IV counterpart, PN dexamethasone (5 mg) provides a longer duration of motor block, sensory block, and postoperative analgesia for US-guided infraclavicular block. Future dose-finding studies are required to elucidate the optimal dose of dexamethasone.

Background This randomized double-blinded trial compared the effect of intravenous and perineural dexamethasone (8 mg) on the duration of motor block for ultrasound (US)-guided axillary brachial plexus block (AXB). Methods Patients undergoing upper limb surgery with US-guided AXB were randomly allocated to receive preservative-free dexamethasone (8 mg) via intravenous (n = 75) or perineural (n = 75) administration. The local anesthetic agent, 1% lidocaine -0.25% bupivacaine (30 mL) with epinephrine 5 lgÁmL -1 , was identical in all subjects. Operators and patients were blinded to the nature of the intravenous and perineural injectate. A blinded observer assessed the block success rate (i.e., a minimal sensorimotor composite score of 14 out of 16 points at 30 min), block onset time, as well as the presence of surgical anesthesia. Postoperatively, the blinded observer contacted all patients with successful blocks to record the duration of motor block (primary outcome), sensory block, and postoperative analgesia. Results No intergroup differences were observed in terms of success rate, surgical anesthesia, and block onset time. RésuméContexte Cette étude randomisée à double insu portant sur le bloc axillaire du plexus brachial par échoguidage a comparé l'effet de la dexaméthasone (8 mg) administrée par voie intraveineuse ou périneurale sur la durée du bloc moteur. Méthode Des patients subissant une chirurgie des membres supérieurs sous un bloc axillaire du plexus brachial réalisé par échoguidage ont été randomisés à recevoir une dose de dexaméthasone (8 mg) sans agent de conservation par administration intraveineuse (n = 75) ou périneurale (n = 75). L'anesthésique local était identique pour tous les patients de l'étude, lidocaïne 1% et bupivacaïne -0,25% (30 mL) avec 5 lgÁmL -1

In teaching centers, primary failure of thoracic epidural analgesia can be due to multiple etiologies. In addition to the difficult anatomy of the thoracic spine, the conventional end point-loss-of-resistance-lacks specificity. Furthermore, insufficient training compounds the problem: learning curves are nonexistent, pedagogical requirements are often inadequate, supervisors may be inexperienced, and exposure during residency is decreasing. Any viable solution needs to be multifaceted. Learning curves should be explored to determine the minimal number of blocks required for proficiency. The problem of decreasing caseload can be tackled with epidural simulators to supplement in vivo learning. From a technical standpoint, fluoroscopy and ultrasonography could be used to navigate the complex anatomy of the thoracic spine. Finally, correct identification of the thoracic epidural space should be confirmed with objective, real-time modalities such as neurostimulation and waveform analysis.

Compared with its conventional counterpart, EWA-confirmed LOR results in a lower failure rate for thoracic epidural blocks (2% vs 24%) in our teaching centers. Confirmatory EWA provides significant benefits for inexperienced operators.