Skip Navigation

British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009 102(5):714-716; doi:10.1093/bja/aep068
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grounds, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Wildsmith, J. A. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Grounds, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Wildsmith, J. A. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Board of Directors of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournal.org

Is the outcome for central neuraxial blockade really reassuring?

R. M. Grounds

London, UK

E-mail: michael.grounds@stgeorges.nhs.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Editor—The authors of the recent ‘Major complications of central neuraxial block: report on the Third National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists’1 suggest that the results of this project are ‘largely reassuring’. However, I would submit that the use of the word ‘reassuring’ may be comforting for those enthusiasts who advocate a wider use of central neuraxial blockade (CNB), but their results may not be quite so well received by the wider audience, their patients. The authors correctly identify that large randomized controlled trials2 and meta-analysis3 have led to conflicting conclusions and interpretations regarding the outcome benefit of CNB techniques. The reduction in pain after the use of CNB is not contested, but the improvement of outcome is not well established, and the well-established risks of CNB are all too often not considered in studies examining surgical outcome.4 The authors, on behalf of the National Audit Project of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

T. M. Cook1,*, D. Counsell2 and J. A. W. Wildsmith3

1 Bath, UK
2 Wrexham, UK
3 Dundee, UK

* E-mail: tcook@rcoa.ac.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
V. Moen, L. Irestedt, N. Dahlgren, T. M. Cook, D. Counsell, and J. A. Wildsmith
Major complications of central neuraxial block: the Third National Audit Project: some comments and questions
Br. J. Anaesth., July 1, 2009; 103(1): 130 - 132.
[Full Text] [PDF]