Feasibility of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks in simulated microgravity: a proof-of-concept study for regional anaesthesia during deep space missions

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Mathew B. Kiberd, Regan Brownbridge, Matthew Mackin, Daniel Werry, Sally Bird, Garrett Barry, Jonathan G. Bailey
{"title":"Feasibility of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks in simulated microgravity: a proof-of-concept study for regional anaesthesia during deep space missions","authors":"Mathew B. Kiberd,&nbsp;Regan Brownbridge,&nbsp;Matthew Mackin,&nbsp;Daniel Werry,&nbsp;Sally Bird,&nbsp;Garrett Barry,&nbsp;Jonathan G. Bailey","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>With crewed deep space exploration on the horizon, preparation for potential astronaut health crises in space missions has become vital. Administration of anaesthesia and analgesia presents many challenges owing to constraints specific to space (physiologic and ergonomic challenges associated with microgravity) and nonspecific factors (isolation and lack of supplies). Regional anaesthesia can be the safest option; however, we hypothesised that the ergonomics of microgravity would compromise ease and accuracy of nerve blocks.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We evaluated the feasibility of regional anaesthesia in a simulated microgravity environment (free-floating underwater conditions) using a meat (bovine muscle) model. Forty meat models were randomised for injection under simulated microgravity or normal gravity conditions. Success rates were determined by blinded assessors after injection. Parameters assessed included time to block, ease of image acquisition, and ease of needle placement.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median time to block in normal gravity was 27 (interquartile range 21–69) s <em>vs</em> 35 (interquartile range 22–48) s in simulated microgravity (<em>P</em>=0.751). Ease of image acquisition was similar in both conditions, as was ease of needle placement. There was no significant difference in the rate of accidental intraneural injections (5% <em>vs</em> 5%), with block success rates comparable in both scenarios (80% normal gravity <em>vs</em> 85% microgravity, <em>P</em>&gt;0.999).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Regional anaesthesia appears feasible for experts in simulated microgravity despite the ergonomic challenges. Although our model has limitations and might not fully capture the complexities of actual space conditions, it provides a foundation for future research into anaesthesia and analgesia during deep space missions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"133 6","pages":"Pages 1276-1283"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224004914","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

With crewed deep space exploration on the horizon, preparation for potential astronaut health crises in space missions has become vital. Administration of anaesthesia and analgesia presents many challenges owing to constraints specific to space (physiologic and ergonomic challenges associated with microgravity) and nonspecific factors (isolation and lack of supplies). Regional anaesthesia can be the safest option; however, we hypothesised that the ergonomics of microgravity would compromise ease and accuracy of nerve blocks.

Methods

We evaluated the feasibility of regional anaesthesia in a simulated microgravity environment (free-floating underwater conditions) using a meat (bovine muscle) model. Forty meat models were randomised for injection under simulated microgravity or normal gravity conditions. Success rates were determined by blinded assessors after injection. Parameters assessed included time to block, ease of image acquisition, and ease of needle placement.

Results

The median time to block in normal gravity was 27 (interquartile range 21–69) s vs 35 (interquartile range 22–48) s in simulated microgravity (P=0.751). Ease of image acquisition was similar in both conditions, as was ease of needle placement. There was no significant difference in the rate of accidental intraneural injections (5% vs 5%), with block success rates comparable in both scenarios (80% normal gravity vs 85% microgravity, P>0.999).

Conclusions

Regional anaesthesia appears feasible for experts in simulated microgravity despite the ergonomic challenges. Although our model has limitations and might not fully capture the complexities of actual space conditions, it provides a foundation for future research into anaesthesia and analgesia during deep space missions.
模拟微重力下超声引导神经阻滞的可行性:深空任务中区域麻醉的概念验证研究。
背景随着载人深空探索的即将到来,为太空任务中潜在的宇航员健康危机做好准备已变得至关重要。由于太空特有的限制因素(与微重力相关的生理和人体工程学挑战)和非特异因素(隔离和缺乏供应),麻醉和镇痛的实施面临许多挑战。区域麻醉可能是最安全的选择;但是,我们假设微重力的人体工程学会影响神经阻滞的简便性和准确性。方法 我们使用肉类(牛肌肉)模型评估了在模拟微重力环境(自由漂浮的水下条件)中进行区域麻醉的可行性。40 个肉模型被随机分配在模拟微重力或正常重力条件下进行注射。注射后由盲人评估员确定成功率。结果在正常重力条件下,阻滞时间的中位数为 27 秒(四分位数间距为 21-69),而在模拟微重力条件下为 35 秒(四分位数间距为 22-48)(P=0.751)。两种情况下采集图像的难易程度相似,放置针头的难易程度也相似。两种情况下的阻滞成功率相当(80% 正常重力与 85% 微重力,P>0.999)。尽管我们的模型存在局限性,可能无法完全反映实际太空条件的复杂性,但它为未来研究深空任务中的麻醉和镇痛提供了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信