FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2960951818> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2960951818 endingPage "1065" @default.
• W2960951818 startingPage "1064" @default.
• W2960951818 abstract "We would like to commend Adhikary et al. for their continued efforts to show benefit from novel regional techniques for chest trauma 1 and agree that patients with rib fracture(s) have significantly improved pain scores after regional analgesia. We would like to invite the authors to reply to a number of comments that we have about their work. Firstly, the authors make several comments about the technically challenging nature of paravertebral blockade. In our institution, ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral blockade is the regional technique of choice in unilateral chest trauma. Data from our experiences reveal an extremely low complication rate, with no significant complications from 314 paravertebral catheters over a 4-year period 1, inserted by consultant and registrar anaesthetists. This is consistent with our experience of thousands of single-shot blocks performed for breast surgery, and with similar experiences in other centres worldwide 2. We recognise that there is, undoubtedly, a learning curve associated with the paravertebral technique, but we believe this is similar in appearance to learning curves for any other new regional anaesthetic technique. Secondly, we note that only 79 patients were administered an erector spinae plane (ESP) block over 19 months. Can we ask whether there were other patients in the authors’ institution that received epidural or paravertebral blockade during this time, and whether comparative analysis has been possible? We are not aware of any published evidence that the ESP block is technically easier, and the results of any such analysis would be useful to know when organising training. Are there novices or non-anaesthetists performing the ESP block at the authors’ institution? Thirdly, the authors question the feasibility of paravertebral blockade in coagulopathy and haemodynamic instability. In our opinion, neither coagulopathy nor anticoagulation is a contra-indication to paravertebral techniques, necessarily. We assess each case individually, in line with the collaborative guideline from on regional anaesthesia techniques in patients with abnormalities of coagulation 3. This guideline classifies paravertebral block as ‘higher risk’ compared with more peripheral or superficial techniques, but provides no quantification of this risk, and does not reference any evidence documenting complications in patients with disorders of coagulation. Furthermore, we can find no case reports of spinal or epidural haematomas following ultrasound-guided paravertebral block performance. The practice of using curled catheters rather than straight in the paravertebral space further reduces the risk of accidental epidural placement. Our experience also reveals no associated haemodynamic instability following paravertebral blockade. Their analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in spirometry values, but such improvement would be expected normally over time, with or without regional anaesthesia. Are the authors confident about ascribing causality between the block and the spirometry improvement, given the 24-h gap between insertion and measurement? In our experience, spirometry improves very soon (within 30 min) after block insertion, and often improves further by the following day. We suggest that paravertebral block overcomes the variability in analgesia observed in the authors’ study, because it places local anaesthetic in close proximity to the target nerves, can be performed by a range of anaesthetist grades, is associated with minimal complications and side-effects, and performance of which is contra-indicated in very few patients. Regardless of the block choice however, we agree with the authors that good analgesia (under the aegis of a comprehensive pain service) remains critical in the successful management of rib fractures." @default.
• W2960951818 created "2019-07-23" @default.
• W2960951818 creator A5022702882 @default.
• W2960951818 creator A5037076906 @default.
• W2960951818 creator A5077840026 @default.
• W2960951818 date "2019-07-08" @default.
• W2960951818 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2960951818 title "Erector spinae plane vs. paravertebral blockade for rib fracture analgesia" @default.
• W2960951818 cites W1895596777 @default.
• W2960951818 cites W2161421497 @default.
• W2960951818 cites W2912550060 @default.
• W2960951818 cites W2913586477 @default.
• W2960951818 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14730" @default.
• W2960951818 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31282582" @default.
• W2960951818 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2960951818 type Work @default.
• W2960951818 sameAs 2960951818 @default.
• W2960951818 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2960951818 countsByYear W29609518182020 @default.
• W2960951818 countsByYear W29609518182021 @default.
• W2960951818 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2960951818 hasAuthorship W2960951818A5022702882 @default.
• W2960951818 hasAuthorship W2960951818A5037076906 @default.
• W2960951818 hasAuthorship W2960951818A5077840026 @default.
• W2960951818 hasBestOaLocation W29609518181 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C170493617 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C2777210771 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C2778445469 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C2778468042 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C2992886682 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C3017770426 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConcept C81182388 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C126322002 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C141071460 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C170493617 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C2524010 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C2777210771 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C2778445469 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C2778468042 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C2992886682 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C3017770426 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C33923547 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C42219234 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C71924100 @default.
• W2960951818 hasConceptScore W2960951818C81182388 @default.
• W2960951818 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W2960951818 hasLocation W29609518181 @default.
• W2960951818 hasLocation W29609518182 @default.
• W2960951818 hasOpenAccess W2960951818 @default.
• W2960951818 hasPrimaryLocation W29609518181 @default.
• W2960951818 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2960951818 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2960951818 hasRelatedWork W2070220111 @default.
• W2960951818 hasRelatedWork W2086784817 @default.
• W2960951818 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W2960951818 hasRelatedWork W2335381395 @default.
• W2960951818 hasRelatedWork W2369768841 @default.
• W2960951818 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2960951818 hasRelatedWork W4247723222 @default.
• W2960951818 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W2960951818 hasVolume "74" @default.
• W2960951818 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2960951818 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2960951818 magId "2960951818" @default.
• W2960951818 workType "article" @default.