Introduction: According to the literature the application of ultrasound (US) in performing regional anesthesia had a significant impact on patient safety by increasing the success rate [1]. In 2006 a donated ultrasound device became available in the Institute of Emergency Medicine, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova. Due to lack of equipment both US guided and landmark techniques have been performed. The aim of this study was to analyze the two methods of performing regional anesthesia, in order to estimate the potentials benefits of of US guided techniques (succes rate and doses). Material and Methods: A retrospective research enroled 200 pacients, divided in US guided group (USG) and landmark group (LMG). Results: The bivariate analysis showed that, out of 100 anesthetics in LMG, a number of 13 were reported as unsuccessful, compared with a number of 20 in USG. The v2 test with corrections for continuity did not determine significance (test value 1.306, df = 1, p = .253, effect size = .007), RR being 1.67 (95% CI 0.78–3.58). Linear regression for dose (lidocaine) modeling, in patients included in the research, showed a decrease of the dose by 57 mg in LMG, the confidence interval being quite wide (95% CI - .938, - .192). That is, the actual decrease is within the limits of 19 and 94 mg. Conclusions: The tendency towards higher failure rate in successfully performing an US guided regional anesthesia and relative ‘‘uncertain’’ decreasing of dosage are in contradiction with the international statistical data. This in turn evidenced probable deficiencies in the training of the practitioners in field of ultrasound guided techniques in our country. The prospective research to confirme/ infirme these results and estimate the complication rate follows. References: 1. Barrington MJ, Uda Y. Did ultrasound fulfill the promise of safety in regional anesthesia? Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 2018; 31 (5): 649–655.