Perioperative dexamethasone does not affect functional outcome in total hip arthroplasty.

UNLABELLED: Current trends in orthopaedic surgery have explored different forms of adjuvant treatments to minimize postoperative pain and the risk of nausea and vomiting. A small single preoperative dose of dexamethasone, as part of a comprehensive multimodal analgesic regimen in low-risk patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), provides antiemetic and opioid-sparing effects but the longer-term effects on pain, complications, or function are not known. We therefore asked whether such a routine would affect longer-term pain, complications, or function. Fifty patients undergoing elective primary THA using spinal anesthesia were initially randomized to receive either dexamethasone (40 mg intravenous) or saline placebo. The patients, anesthesiologists, nurses, and research coordinators were blinded to the study arms. The functional outcome was measured using the Harris hip score. Outcomes were assessed 6 weeks and 1 year postoperatively. We observed no difference in resting pain between the two groups at either time period. Both groups had similar functional outcome scores for the total Harris hip score and individual scoring items at each followup interval. There were no wound complications, deep infections, or osteonecrosis in the contralateral hip at 1-year followup. We recommend the addition of a small single preoperative dose of dexamethasone to a comprehensive multimodal analgesic regimen in low-risk patients given its immediate antiemetic and opioid-sparing effects, and absence of subsequent effects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study (prospective comparative study). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Functional outcome of femoral versus obturator nerve block after total knee arthroplasty.

UNLABELLED: Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty often experience substantial postoperative pain, which may delay functional recovery and hospital discharge. We recently reported the short-term analgesic efficacy of a single-injection femoral nerve block after spinal anesthesia in total knee arthroplasty. We have now followed 30 patients a minimum of 1 year to determine the functional outcome and pain relief after femoral and obturator nerve block after total knee arthroplasty. Patients undergoing primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) femoral nerve block; (2) obturator nerve block; or (3) placebo (sham block). At 6 weeks and 1 year, all three groups had similar total Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores and similar subscores such as range of motion, daily function, and resting and dynamic pain. The data support the usefulness of a peripheral nerve blockade in the context of a multimodal analgesic regimen and a tailored rehabilitation program to individual patients and institutions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Single-dose dexamethasone reduces dynamic pain after total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative glucocorticoids reduce postoperative nausea but may also improve analgesia and decrease opioid consumption. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients undergoing elective, unilateral, primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia with propofol sedation received in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled manner either 40 mg of dexamethasone or saline placebo i.v. before the start of surgery. I.v. patient-controlled analgesia morphine, ibuprofen 400 mg p.o. q6 h and acetaminophen 650 mg p.o. q6 h were given for 48 h. Pain (0-10 numeric rating scale, NRS) at rest, side effects, and total cumulative patient-controlled analgesia morphine consumption were recorded q4 h for 48 h. Dynamic pain NRS score was recorded at 24 h. C-reactive protein levels were measured in a subgroup of 25 patients at 48 h. RESULTS: The intraoperative sedation requirement with propofol was significantly increased in the dexamethasone group (234.6 +/- 160.1 vs 138.8 +/- 122.7 mg, P = 0.02). Dynamic pain was greatly reduced in the dexamethasone group (NRS score: 2.7, 95% CI: 2.2-3.1 vs 6.8, 6.4-7.2; P < 0.0001). There was no significant effect on pain at rest or cumulative morphine consumption at any time. C-reactive protein levels at 48 h were markedly reduced by dexamethasone (52.4 mg/mL, 28.2-76.6 vs 194.2, 168.9-219.4; P < 0.0001). Seven patients in the control group, but only one in the dexamethasone group, were treated for nausea (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A single, preoperative i.v. dose of dexamethasone 40 mg has a prolonged suppressive effect on the inflammatory response and decreases dynamic pain 24 h after total hip arthroplasty.

Electrical stimulation of the epidural space using a catheter with a removable stylet.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electrical stimulation can be used to verify the location of epidural catheters. With the traditional technique, the latter must be primed with saline to allow for electrical conduction: any air lock will, thus, hinder the flow of current. Therefore, we set out to explore an alternative mode of stimulation by use of a catheter containing a removable stylet. This study examines the reliability of this new technique. METHODS: In 71 patients undergoing surgery, a thoracic epidural catheter was inserted preoperatively. Loss of resistance was used to identify the epidural space. The TheraCath was introduced 5 cm into the space and connected to a neurostimulator via a 2-headed alligator clip. The intensity, pulse width, and level of myotomal contractions were recorded upon stimulation of the epidural space. A bolus of lidocaine was then injected and the patient assessed for sensory block to ice. RESULTS: The failure rate in proper epidural catheter placement was 8.5%. Epidural stimulation yielded a mean threshold of 1.90 +/- 1.80 nanocoulombs. A total of 37 catheters produced a unilateral muscular response; however, block to ice was bilateral. When compared with the ice test, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of epidural stimulation with the TheraCath were 92%, 83%, 98%, and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the TheraCath, because of the removable stylet, provides effective electrostimulation of the epidural space. Its use was simple and devoid of complications. Nonetheless, further studies are required before implementing its routine use in clinical settings.

Documentation on the anesthetic record: Correlation with clinically important variables.

PURPOSE: A survey was undertaken at a single Academic Health Sciences Centre to document the opinions of anesthesiologists regarding what variables are important to document on the anesthetic record. A subsequent chart review of anesthetic records was undertaken to determine the extent to which these anesthesiologists record the variables they consider important. METHODS: A survey form was mailed to all practicing staff anesthesiologists at the four adult McGill University affiliated hospitals. Anesthesiologists were asked to rank 23 preoperative and 33 intraoperative variables on a scale from 1-5: (1 = essential; 2 = important; 3 = useful; 4 = not important; 5 = excessive information). All variables considered by consensus < or = 2 (important to essential) were then assessed as to whether they were recorded on 60 charts randomly selected from each of the four teaching hospitals. Only anesthetic records completed by staff anesthesiologists were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety percent (47/52) of survey forms were completed and returned. Preoperative variables considered most important to document included examination of the patient's airway and allergy status. Intraoperative variables considered most important for documentation were the patient's vital signs. The only variable to have been recorded on all the anesthetic records was the anesthesiologist's name. The allergy status was the most recorded preoperative variable (84% of charts). The recording rates of intraoperative variables ranged from 100% (anesthesiologist's name, start time of anesthesia) to 24% (estimated blood loss). CONCLUSION: McGill anesthesiologists consider many preoperative and intraoperative variables to be important to document on the anesthetic record. However, subsequent chart review indicated that many of these variables are recorded inconsistently. The transmission of anesthesia-related medical information might be improved if anesthesiologists recorded more consistently information they consider to be important.

Documentation on the anesthetic record: correlation with clinically important variables : [Documentation sur le dossier anesthésique : corrélation avec les variables cliniques importantes].

PURPOSE: A survey was undertaken at a single Academic Health Sciences Centre to document the opinions of anesthesiologists regarding what variables are important to document on the anesthetic record. A subsequent chart review of anesthetic records was undertaken to determine the extent to which these anesthesiologists record the variables they consider important. METHODS: A survey form was mailed to all practicing staff anesthesiologists at the four adult McGill University affiliated hospitals. Anesthesiologists were asked to rank 23 preoperative and 33 intraoperative variables on a scale from 1-5: (1 = essential; 2 = important; 3 = useful; 4 = not important; 5 = excessive information). All variables considered by consensus ≤ 2 (important to essential) were then assessed as to whether they were recorded on 60 charts randomly selected from each of the four teaching hospitals. Only anesthetic records completed by staff anesthesiologists were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety percent (47/52) of survey forms were completed and returned. Preoperative variables considered most important to document included examination of the patient's airway and allergy status. Intraoperative variables considered most important for documentation were the patient's vital signs. The only variable to have been recorded on all the anesthetic records was the anesthesiologist's name. The allergy status was the most recorded preoperative variable (84% of charts). The recording rates of intraoperative variables ranged from 100% (anesthesiologist's name, start time of anesthesia) to 24% (estimated blood loss). CONCLUSION: McGill anesthesiologists consider many preoperative and intraoperative variables to be important to document on the anesthetic record. However, subsequent chart review indicated that many of these variables are recorded inconsistently. The transmission of anesthesia-related medical information might be improved if anesthesiologists recorded more consistently information they consider to be important. OBJECTIF: Une enquête a été menée à un Centre universitaire de sciences de la santé pour connaître les opinions des anesthésiologistes sur les variables jugées importantes à inscrire au dossier anesthésique. Une revue subséquente des dossiers anesthésiques a été réalisée pour vérifier si les anesthésiologistes enregistrent les variables qu'ils considèrent importantes. MéTHODE: Un formulaire d'enquête a été posté à tous les anesthésiologistes en exercice dans les quatre hôpitaux pour adultes affiliés à l'université McGill. On leur a demandé de coter 23 variables préopératoires et 33 peropératoires sur une échelle de 1-5: (1 = essentielle, 2 = importante, 3 = utile, 4 = non importante et 5 = surinformation). Toutes les variables reconnues par la majorité ≤ 2 (importante à essentielle) ont été ensuite vérifiées pour savoir si elles étaient enregistrées dans 60 dossiers choisis au hasard dans chacun des quatre hôpitaux d'enseignement. Seuls les dossiers anesthésiques remplis par des spécialistes en service ont été évalués. RéSULTATS: Des formulaires envoyés 90 % (47/52) ont été remplis et retournés. Les variables préopératoires considérées importantes comprenaient l'examen des voies aériennes du patient et la présence d'allergie. Les variables peropératoires prioritaires ont été les signes vitaux des patients. La seule variable enregistrée dans tous les dossiers a été le nom de l'anesthésiologiste. La présence d'allergie a été la variable préopératoire la plus souvent enregistrée (84 % des dossiers). Les taux d'enregistrement des variables peropératoires allait de 100 % (nom de l'anesthésiologiste, heure du début de l'anesthésie) à 24 % (perte sanguine estimée). CONCLUSION: Les anesthésiologistes de McGill considèrent que de nombreuses variables préopératoires et peropératoires sont importantes à noter au dossier anesthésique. Une revue subséquente des dossiers a indiqué que beaucoup de ces variables ne sont pas constamment inscrites. La transmission des informations médicales liées à l'anesthésie serait améliorée si les anesthésiologistes notaient plus régulièrement les variables qu'ils jugent les plus importantes.

Ketorolac analgesia for inguinal hernia repair is not improved by peripheral administration.

PURPOSE: It has been suggested that ketorolac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) available for parenteral use, may result in prolonged (24 hr) postoperative analgesia through a peripheral mechanism when added to local anesthetic infiltration. Our objective was to assess this effect by controlling for systemic absorption of the drug. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind trial studied 40 men undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair under spinal anesthesia. All patients received 19 mL of lidocaine 1% infiltrated in the operative field before incision. Patients were randomized into two groups of 20. The surgical site group received ketorolac 30 mg added to the lidocaine infiltration. In the control group, ketorolac 30 mg was injected subcutaneously in the contralateral abdominal wall. Numeric rating scores (0-10) of pain at rest and with movement were recorded at the time of discharge from the recovery room and at 24 hr postoperatively. Time to first analgesia, postoperative iv morphine use, total time in the recovery room, and total oral analgesic use in the first 24 hr were also compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups with respect to any of the measured variables. In both groups, pain scores were low at rest (1.9 +/- 1.4 vs 2.2 +/- 1.8, surgical site and systemic groups, respectively) and moderate with movement (5.3 +/- 2.2, 5.0 +/- 1.8) after anesthetic recovery. Pain scores were similar at 24 hr (1.1 +/- 1.3, 1.9 +/- 1.6 at rest; 5.7 +/- 2.0, 6.2 +/- 2.2 with movement). CONCLUSION: Adding ketorolac to lidocaine infiltration for hernia repair does not improve or prolong postoperative analgesia compared to systemic administration.