Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall blocks

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

There 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Sixty 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.

Conclusions

Harmonization 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.

Related collections

Most cited references 50

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.

Ivan Diamond, Robert C Grant, Brian Feldman … (2014)

To investigate how consensus is operationalized in Delphi studies and to explore the role of consensus in determining the results of these studies. Systematic review of a random sample of 100 English language Delphi studies, from two large multidisciplinary databases [ISI Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, NY) and Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL)], published between 2000 and 2009. About 98 of the Delphi studies purported to assess consensus, although a definition for consensus was only provided in 72 of the studies (64 a priori). The most common definition for consensus was percent agreement (25 studies), with 75% being the median threshold to define consensus. Although the authors concluded in 86 of the studies that consensus was achieved, consensus was only specified a priori (with a threshold value) in 42 of these studies. Achievement of consensus was related to the decision to stop the Delphi study in only 23 studies, with 70 studies terminating after a specified number of rounds. Although consensus generally is felt to be of primary importance to the Delphi process, definitions of consensus vary widely and are poorly reported. Improved criteria for reporting of methods of Delphi studies are required. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 623 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review

Rym Boulkedid, Hendy Abdoul, Marine Loustau … (2011)

Objective Delphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice. Methodology and Main Finding Three electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978–2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility. Conclusion The use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.

0 comments Cited 377 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Erector Spinae Plane Block

Ki Chin, Calvin Tsui, Héctor S López … (2016)

Thoracic neuropathic pain is a debilitating condition that is often poorly responsive to oral and topical pharmacotherapy. The benefit of interventional nerve block procedures is unclear due to a paucity of evidence and the invasiveness of the described techniques. In this report, we describe a novel interfascial plane block, the erector spinae plane (ESP) block, and its successful application in 2 cases of severe neuropathic pain (the first resulting from metastatic disease of the ribs, and the second from malunion of multiple rib fractures). In both cases, the ESP block also produced an extensive multidermatomal sensory block. Anatomical and radiological investigation in fresh cadavers indicates that its likely site of action is at the dorsal and ventral rami of the thoracic spinal nerves. The ESP block holds promise as a simple and safe technique for thoracic analgesia in both chronic neuropathic pain as well as acute postsurgical or posttraumatic pain.