RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pain control is essential to successful total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This non-blinded, randomized clinical trial compared shoulder pain, narcotic use, interscalene (IS) block application time, and costs in 76 subjects who were randomly assigned to receive either a single injection IS nerve block of 10 cc (133 mg) liposomal bupivacaine mixed with 10 cc of 0.5% bupivacaine (Group 1), or 20 cc of 0.5% ropivacaine direct injection combined with an indwelling IS nerve block catheter delivering 0.2% ropivacaine at a continual 4 cc/h infusion for the initial 3 post-operative days (Group 2). Surgical time, local anesthesia duration, hospital stay length, morphine milligram equivalents (MME) consumed, worst shoulder pain at 24, 48 and 72 h, and complications were recorded. Patient reported function, pain and activity level surveys were completed before, and 6-week post-TSA (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Group 1 had less pain 24-h (0.72 ± 0.8 vs. 3.4 ± 2.9, p < 0.0001) and 48-h (2.5 ± 2.2 vs. 4.8 ± 2.6, p = 0.005) post-TSA. At 24-h post-TSA, MME consumption was similar (Group 1 = 4.5 ± 6.4 vs. Group 2 = 3.7 ± 3.8, p = 0.54), but was lower for Group 1 at 48 h (0.0 ± 0.0 vs. 0.64 ± 0.99, p = 0.001). Group 2 had longer IS block application time (10.00 ± 4.6 min vs. 4.84 ± 2.7 min, p < 0.0001). Only group 2 had a strong relationship between MME consumption over the first 24-h post-TSA and pain 24-h post-TSA (r = 0.76, p < 0.0001), a moderate relationship with pain 48-h post-TSA (r = 0.59, P = 0.001), and a weak relationship with pain 72-h post-TSA (r = 0.44, P = 0.02). Significant relationships for these variables were not observed for Group 1 (r ≤ 0.30, p ≥ 0.23). Group 1 IS block costs were less/patient than Group 2 ($190.17 vs. $357.12 USD). CONCLUSION: A single shot, liposomal bupivacaine interscalene nerve block provided better post-TSA pain control with less narcotic consumption, less time for administration and less healthcare system cost compared to interscalene nerve block using a continuous indwelling catheter. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, Prospective, Randomized.