Dataset Information

Intraarticular vs. extraarticular ropivacaine infusion following high-dose local infiltration analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized double-blind study.

ABSTRACT: Ropivacaine infusion following high-volume local infiltration analgesia has been shown to be effective after total knee arthroplasty, but the optimum site of administration of ropivacaine has not been evaluated. We compared the effects of intraarticular and extraarticular adminstration of the local anesthetic for postoperative supplementation of high-volume local infiltration analgesia.In this double-blind study, 36 rheumatic patients aged 51-78 years with physical status ASA 2-3 who were scheduled for total knee arthroplasty were randomized into 2 groups. All patients received wound infiltration at the end of surgery with 300 mg ropivacaine, 30 mg ketorolac, and 0.5 mg epinephrine (total volume 156 mL). A tunneled catheter was randomly placed either extraarticularly or intraarticularly. Continuous infusion of ropivacain (0.5%, 2 mL/h) was started immediately and was maintained during the next 48 h. Pain intensity at rest, on movement, and with mobilization was estimated by the patients and the physiotherapist; rescue morphine consumption was recorded.As estimated by the patients, ropivacaine administered intraarticularly did not improve analgesia relative to extraarticular infusion, but improved the first mobilization. The incidence of high intensity of pain (VAS 7-10) was less in the group with intraarticular infusion. Analgesic requirements were similar in the 2 groups (47 mg and 49 mg morphine). No complications of postoperative wound healing were seen and there were no toxic side effects.Continuous infusion of ropivacaine intraarticulary did not improve postoperative analgesia at rest relative to extraarticular administration, but it appeared to reduce the incidence of high pain intensity during first exercises, and could therefore be expected to improve mobilization up to 24 h after total knee arthroplasty.

SUBMITTER: Dobrydnjov I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3247887 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intraarticular vs. extraarticular ropivacaine infusion following high-dose local infiltration analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized double-blind study.

Dobrydnjov Igor I Anderberg Christian C Olsson Christer C Shapurova Olga O Angel Krister K Bergman Stefan S

Acta orthopaedica 20111025 6

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>Ropivacaine infusion following high-volume local infiltration analgesia has been shown to be effective after total knee arthroplasty, but the optimum site of administration of ropivacaine has not been evaluated. We compared the effects of intraarticular and extraarticular adminstration of the local anesthetic for postoperative supplementation of high-volume local infiltration analgesia.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>In this double-blind study, 36 rheumatic patients a ...[more]

PMID: 22026413

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundContinuous local infiltration analgesia (CLIA) can be administered via intraarticular or periarticular techniques in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this investigation was to retrospectively report a single-center experience of epidural analgesia with subcutaneous CLIA versus epidural analgesia without CLIA among patients undergoing TKA.MethodsThis single-center retrospective study was conducted in Saudi Arabia. From January 01, 2014, to December 30, 2020, medical records of all patients who underwent TKA were reviewed. Patients who received subcutaneous CLIA with epidural analgesia were assigned to the intervention group, whereas those who received epidural analgesia without subcutaneous CLIA were assigned to the control group. The efficacy endpoints included: (i) postoperative pain scores at 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, and 3 months; (ii) postoperative opioid consumption at 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, and 24-72 h (cumulative); (iii) length of hospital stay; and (iv) postoperative functional recovery of the knee 3 months post-operation, according to the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score.ResultsAt rest and during mobilization, the CLIA group (n = 28) achieved significantly lower postoperative pain scores 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, and 3 months post-operation than the non-CLIA group (n = 35). Subgroup analysis revealed that the CLIA group achieved significantly less opioid consumption 24 h and 48 h post-operation than the non-CLIA group. There was no difference between the groups regarding the length of hospital stay or functional scores 3 months post-operation. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the rate of wound infection, other infections, and readmission within 30 days.ConclusionSubcutaneous CLIA is a technically feasible and safe procedure without major adverse events but with reduced postoperative pain scores (at rest and during mobilization) and opioid consumption. Additional larger studies are warranted to confirm our results. Moreover, a head-to-head comparison between subcutaneous CLIA and periarticular or intraarticular CLIA is an interesting prospective investigation.

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen compared with its oral formulation for postoperative analgesia is unknown. We hypothesized that the addition of acetaminophen to a multimodal analgesia regimen would provide improved pain management in patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and that the effect of acetaminophen would be variable based on the route of delivery.MethodsThe study was a single-center, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of IV vs oral acetaminophen in patients undergoing unilateral TKA. One hundred seventy-four subjects were randomized to one of the 3 groups: IV acetaminophen group (IV group, n = 57) received 1 g IV acetaminophen and oral placebo before postanesthesia care unit (PACU) admission; oral acetaminophen group (PO group, n = 58) received 1 g oral acetaminophen and volume-matched IV normal saline; placebo group (Placebo group, n = 59) received oral placebo and volume-matched IV normal saline. Pain scores were obtained every 15 minutes during PACU stay. Average pain scores, maximum pain score, and pain scores before physical therapy were compared among the 3 groups. Secondary outcomes included total opiate consumption, time to PACU discharge, time to rescue analgesia, and time to breakthrough pain.ResultsThe average PACU pain score was similar in the IV group (0.56 ± 0.99 [mean ± standard deviation]) compared with the PO group (0.67 ± 1.20; P = .84) and Placebo group (0.58 ± 0.99; P = .71). Total opiate consumption at 6 hours (0.47 mg hydromorphone equivalents ± 0.56 vs 0.54 ± 0.53 vs 0.54 ± 0.61; P = .69) and at 24 hours (1.25 ± 1.30 vs 1.49 ± 1.34 vs 1.36 ± 1.31; P = .46) were also similar between the IV, PO, and Placebo groups. No significant differences were found between all groups for any other outcome.ConclusionNeither IV nor oral acetaminophen provides additional analgesia in the immediate postoperative period when administered as an adjunct to multimodal analgesia in patients undergoing TKA in the setting of a spinal anesthetic.

Project description:BackgroundA superior analgesic method in perioperative pain-management of patients receiving total knee arthroplasty is the subject of controversial debate. Although higher cost-efficiency is claimed for the local infiltration analgesia (LIA), there is a lack of data on its costs compared to peripheral nerve block anaesthesia (PNBA). The goal of this study was to investigate the differences in immediate perioperative costs between the LIA and PNBA in treatment of patients receiving total knee arthroplasty.MethodsThe comparison was conducted based on a randomized controlled clinical trial examining 40 patients with elective, primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA, 20 patients with LIA and 20 patients with PNBA). The analysis included surgical case costs, anaesthesiological case costs, material, costs of postoperative opioid requirements and catheter review visits for patients receiving PNBA.ResultsThe overall mean costs for the LIA-group were 4328.72€ and 4368.12€ for the PNBA (p = 0.851). While there was no statistically significant difference in surgical case costs, the anaesthesiological costs were lower with the LIA procedure (1370.26€ vs. 1542.45€, p = 0.048). Material costs in the LIA group were 4.18€/patient and 94.64€/patient with the PNBA. Costs for postoperative opioid requirements showed no statistically significant difference between the two procedures.ConclusionsThere is no relevant difference in immediate perioperative costs between LIA and PNBA. Shorter induction times lead to lower anaesthesiological case costs with the LIA. Overall economic aspects seem to play a less important role for determining an adequate procedure for perioperative pain management.Trial registrationThe study was approved by the ethics-review-board of Charité Hospital Berlin (Ethikausschuss 4, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, on 16th February 2017) and registered with data safety authorities. Study patients provided written informed consent to participate in the trial. Study registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03114306 .

Dataset Information

Intraarticular vs. extraarticular ropivacaine infusion following high-dose local infiltration analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized double-blind study.

Publications

Intraarticular vs. extraarticular ropivacaine infusion following high-dose local infiltration analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized double-blind study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets