Key result
Regional anesthesia reaches only ~37% utilization in eligible surgeries, driven largely by anesthesiology-related reasons.
Why the study?
What are the frequency and reasons for not choosing regional anesthesia when it is an option?
Observational (n=2,301)
No
What are the frequency and reasons for not choosing regional anesthesia when it is an option?
Absolute Event Rate: 36.5% vs 63.5%
Anesthesiology-related reasons are the most common factor for not utilizing regional anesthesia when it is feasible, highlighting the need for targeted faculty assignments for resident education.
Regional anesthesia remains underused in amenable cases, often due to provider factors; hypothesis-generating for targeted education to address barriers.
BACKGROUND: Although the subspecialty of regional anesthesiology has become an important focus during residency training, there are many factors that might influence a resident's experience in regional anesthesia (RA). There are few data examining the utilization of regional techniques in an anesthesiology residency program. We undertook a prospective observational study to determine the frequency and reasons for not choosing RA in cases for which it was considered an option. METHODS: All scheduled operative procedures that were amenable to neuraxial or major peripheral regional anesthetic techniques were surveyed. Data recorded included the type of intraoperative anesthetic used, type of anesthesiology faculty performing the regional block (regional anesthesiologist vs general anesthesiologist), and reasons for not choosing RA when a regional anesthetic technique was feasible. RESULTS: Of the 2301 surgical procedures amenable to a regional technique, 839 (36.5%) involved use of regional anesthetic, and 1462 (63.5%) involved only a general anesthetic. Of the subjects receiving RA, 32% were performed by general anesthesiology faculty, and 68% were performed by regional anesthesiology faculty. The most common type of regional anesthetic performed by the general anesthesiology faculty was neuraxial blockade (95.2%) (vs 52.5% by regional anesthesiology faculty). Of the cases not involving RA, the reasons were anesthesiology related (40%), surgeon related (34%), patient related (12%), and medical contraindication related (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective observational study suggests that anesthesiology-related reasons may be an important factor for not undertaking these techniques. Although we did not specifically examine the effect on resident education, our study does provide some evidence to support program directors and department chiefs to set up their regional rotations with faculty most likely to perform RA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hanna et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Scheduled operative procedures amenable to regional anesthesia (n=2,301). Regional anesthesia vs. General anesthesia was evaluated on Utilization of regional anesthesia. Among 2,301 surgical procedures amenable to regional anesthesia, only 36.5% utilized regional techniques, with anesthesiology-related reasons accounting for 40% of cases where it was not chosen.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: