Clinical Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine: A Systematic Review of Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trials in Orthopaedic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: There has been a surge in interest with regard to the utility of liposomal bupivacaine as part of a perioperative pain management protocol. The current study was proposed to critically assess the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine as a local anesthetic for pain relief following orthopaedic procedures. METHODS: A systematic review of prospective, randomized trials involving liposomal bupivacaine was performed using searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcomes of interest included postoperative subjective pain scores and narcotic consumption. The length of stay and postoperative mobility were reviewed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies met inclusion criteria and were included for review. Twelve of 17 studies concluded that periarticular or local infiltrative liposomal bupivacaine offered no additive benefit compared with other local anesthetic injections. Peripheral nerve blocks without liposomal bupivacaine conferred more optimal pain relief and decreased narcotic consumption in the immediate postoperative period when compared with liposomal bupivacaine, with no differences thereafter. Twelve studies listed a conflict of interest related to the drug manufacturer (Pacira Pharmaceuticals). Eight of these studies (67%) demonstrated clinical superiority of liposomal bupivacaine when compared with the study control. In the 15 studies that did not show a conflict of interest, only 1 study (7%) demonstrated therapeutic superiority with use of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine when compared with a historical cohort that received no local or regional anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Current prospective, randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery fail to support the routine use of liposomal bupivacaine compared with other local injectable analgesics, particularly in the setting of knee replacement surgery. We were unable to find consistent support for the potential of superior pain relief and narcotic use reduction with the use of liposomal bupivacaine. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The influence of radiographic markers of biomechanical variables on outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in regard to variability in the center of rotation (COR), which modifies the superior-inferior position of the humerus to affect the acromiohumeral interval (AHI), and its effect on the deltoid lever arm (DLA), acromial index (AI), and critical shoulder angle (CSA). The purpose of this study was to investigate the variation in biomechanics and the association with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and range of motion (ROM) measurements. METHODS: Radiographs, ROM, and 2-year PRO scores were retrospectively reviewed for 108 patients. RESULTS: There was large variability in preoperative and postoperative biomechanics. The COR was medialized 12.01 ± 4.8 mm. The CSA increased 2.64° ± 12.45°. The AHI increased 20.6 ± 9.80 mm. The DLA lengthened 21.21 ± 10.15 mm. The AI increased 0.009 ± 0.3. Postoperative AI positively correlated with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Penn Shoulder Score (P = .03). Specifically, a postoperative AI of 0.62 corresponded to American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (72.5 ± 18.3 vs. 62.3 ± 24.7; P = .02) and Penn Shoulder Score (71.2 ± 21.4 vs. 61.8 ± 25.6; P = .05), an average 10 points higher than AI of <0.6. Also, a smaller postoperative CSA (<25°) correlated with improved forward elevation (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study that evaluates the variability of biomechanical factors and their impact on postoperative ROM and PROs. An increased AI and decreased CSA are associated with improved PROs in this study, and a smaller CSA is associated with better forward elevation. Change in the COR, AHI, or DLA, however, did not affect patient outcomes or ROM. Further study is warranted to determine the optimal position.

Preventing infection in shoulder surgery.

Although rare, infection after shoulder surgery can represent a devastating complication. Infection can negatively affect clinical outcomes, and eradication often requires a protracted treatment course. Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Cutibacterium acnes are among the most frequently isolated pathogens. Perioperative measures can be implemented to reduce infection risk. Here we review various perioperative practices and their efficacy at reducing infection after shoulder surgery.

Arthroscopic Removal of a Loose Polyethylene Glenoid Component With Bone Grafting and Patch Augmentation for Glenoid Osseous Defect.

Glenoid component loosening is a common cause of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. Many different treatment options exist for the management of a symptomatic loose polyethylene glenoid component, ranging from component removal to revision arthroplasty. Arthroscopic removal and conversion to hemiarthroplasty provides a minimally invasive management option that avoids takedown of the subscapularis and allows for humeral prosthesis retention. Frequently, however, osteolysis is encountered concomitantly leading to cavitary glenoid bone deficits at the time of glenoid implant removal, limiting both immediate and future treatment options. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe in detail an all-arthroscopic technique for removal of a loose polyethylene glenoid component with subsequent bone grafting of a contained glenoid bone defect, and insertion of a human dermal allograft patch.

Liposomal bupivacaine versus indwelling interscalene nerve block for postoperative pain control in shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain management strategies following shoulder arthroplasty vary significantly. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is an extended-release delivery of a phospholipid bilayer encapsulating bupivacaine that can result in drug delivery up to 72 hours. Prior studies in lower extremity surgery demonstrated efficacy of LB in comparison to a single-shot peripheral nerve block; however, no study has investigated LB in a total shoulder arthroplasty population. Therefore, this study compared LB vs. an indwelling interscalene nerve block (IINB). METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized study of 83 consecutive shoulder arthroplasty patients; 36 patients received LB and a "bridge" of 30 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine, and 47 patients received an IINB. Postoperative visual analog scale pain levels, opiate consumption measured with oral morphine equivalents, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were recorded. Continuous variables were compared using an analysis of variance with significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: Visual analog scale pain scores were statistically higher in the LB cohort immediately postoperatively in the postanesthesia care unit (7.25 vs. 1.91; P = .000) as well as for the remainder of postoperative day 0 (4.99 vs. 3.20; P = .005) but not for the remainder of admission. Opiate consumption was significantly higher among the LB cohort in the postanesthesia care unit (31.79 vs. 7.47; P = .000), on postoperative day 0 (32.64 vs. 15.04; P = .000), and for the total hospital admission (189.50 vs. 91.70, P = .000). Complication numbers and length of stay were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: Use of an IINB provides superior pain management in the immediate postoperative setting as demonstrated by decreased narcotic medication consumption and lower subjective pain scores.

"Proprietary Processed" Allografts: Clinical Outcomes and Biomechanical Properties in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The processing of allograft tissues in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction continues to be controversial. While high-dose irradiation of grafts has received scrutiny for high failure rates, lower dose irradiation and "proprietary-based" nonirradiated sterilization techniques have become increasingly popular, with little in the literature to evaluate their outcomes. Recent studies have suggested that the specifics of allograft processing techniques may be a risk factor for higher failure rates. PURPOSE: To assess these proprietary processes and their clinical outcomes and biomechanical properties. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases. English-language studies were identified with the following search terms: "allograft ACL reconstruction" (title/abstract), "novel allograft processing" (title/abstract), "allograft anterior cruciate ligament" (title/abstract), "anterior cruciate ligament allograft processing" (title/abstract), or "biomechanical properties anterior cruciate ligament allograft" (title/abstract). Duplicate studies, studies not providing the allograft processing technique, and those not containing the outcomes of interest were excluded. Outcomes of interest included outcome scores, complication and failure rates, and biomechanical properties of the processed allografts. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (13 clinical, 11 biomechanical) met inclusion criteria for review. No demonstrable difference in patient-reported outcomes was appreciated between the processing techniques, with the exception of the Tutoplast process. The clinical failure rate of the Tutoplast process was unacceptably high (45% at 6 years), but no other difference was found between other processing techniques (BioCleanse: 5.4%; AlloTrue: 5.7%; MTF: 6.7%). Several studies did show an increased failure rate, but these studies either combined processing techniques or failed to delineate enough detail to allow a specific comparison for this study. The biomechanical studies showed overall maintenance of satisfactory biomechanical properties throughout multiple testing modes with normalization to the percentage of control specimens. CONCLUSION: A comparison of proprietary allograft processing techniques is difficult because of the variability and lack of specificity of reporting in the current literature. Among the available literature, except for the Tutoplast process, no notable differences were found in the clinical outcomes or biomechanical properties. Future study with a longer follow-up is necessary to determine the role and limitations of these grafts in the clinical setting.

Tranexamic acid decreases blood loss in total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) remains unproven in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of TXA on perioperative blood loss and drain output in patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective comparison of 77 TSAs and 94 RTSAs performed in 168 patients. TXA was administered intravenously in 35 TSA and 42 RTSA patients. Changes in hemoglobin (Hgb), hematocrit (Hct), drain output, and total blood loss were reviewed with univariate analysis and additional multivariate regression examining the cofactors of age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, and gender of each patient. RESULTS: Use of TXA in TSA led to a significant decrease in total blood loss (679 mL vs. 910 mL; P < .001), change in Hgb (1.8 mg/dL vs. 2.6 mg/dL; P < .001), and drop in Hct (5.2 vs. 7.0; P < .001). Similarly, RTSA also had significantly less total blood loss with the use of TXA (791 mL vs. 959 mL; P < .001), change in Hgb (2.3 mg/dL vs. 2.9 mg/dL; P < .001), and change in Hct (6.4 vs. 8.3; P < .001). TXA also significantly decreased drain output in both TSA (99 mL vs. 235 mL; P < .001) and RTSA (180 mL vs. 370 mL; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of TXA perioperatively among patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty can decrease perioperative blood loss, change in Hgb and Hct, and postoperative drain output.