Optimizing the Yield of Abnormal Preoperative Chest Radiographs in Elective Non-cardiothoracic Surgery: Development of a Risk Prediction Score and External Validation.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations for preoperative chest radiographs vary to the extent that individual patient benefit is unclear. We developed and validated a prediction score for abnormal preoperative chest radiographs in adult patients undergoing elective non-cardiothoracic surgery. METHODS: Our prospective observational study recruited 703 adult patients who underwent elective non-cardiothoracic surgery at Ramathibodi Hospital. We developed a risk prediction score for abnormal preoperative chest radiographs with external validation using data from 411 patients recruited from Thammasat University Hospital. The discriminative performance was assessed by receiver operating curve analysis. In addition, we assessed the contribution of abnormal chest radiographs to perioperative management. RESULTS: Abnormal preoperative chest radiographs were found in 19.5% of the 703 patients. Age, pulmonary disease, cardiac disease, and diabetes were significant factors. The model showed good performance with a C-statistics of 0.739 (95% CI, 0.691-0.786). We classified patients into four groups based on risk scores. The posttest probabilities in the intermediate-, intermediate-high-, and high-risk groups were 33.2%, 59.8%, and 75.7%, respectively. The model fitted well with the external validation data with a C statistic of 0.731 (95% CI, 0.674-0.789). One (0.4%) abnormal chest radiograph from the low-risk group and three (2.4%) abnormal chest radiographs from the intermediate-to-high-risk group had a major impact on perioperative management. CONCLUSIONS: Four predictors including age, pulmonary disease, cardiac disease, and diabetes were associated with abnormal preoperative chest radiographs. Our risk score demonstrated good performance and may help identify patients at higher risk of chest abnormalities.

The efficacy of local infiltration analgesia in the early postoperative period after total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) has emerged as an alternative treatment for postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Its efficacy remains inconclusive with inconsistent results from previous studies and meta-analyses. There is no agreement on which local anaesthetic agent and infiltration technique is most effective and well tolerated. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare LIA after primary TKA with placebo or no infiltration in terms of early postoperative pain relief, mobilisation, length of hospital stay (LOS) and complications when used as a primary treatment or as an adjunct to regional anaesthesia. The role of injection sites, postoperative injection or infusion and multimodal drug injection with ketorolac were also explored. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using PubMed and SCOPUS up to September 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs comparing LIA with placebo or no infiltration after primary TKA in terms of pain score and opioid consumption at 24 and 48 h, mobilisation, LOS and complications were included. RESULTS: In total 38 RCTs were included. LIA groups had lower pain scores, opioid consumption and postoperative nausea and vomiting, higher range of motion at 24 h and shorter LOS than no injection or placebo. After subgroup analysis, intraoperative peri-articular but not intra-articular injection had lower pain score at 24 h than no injection or placebo with the pooled mean difference of pain score at rest of -0.89 [95% CI (-1.40 to -0.38); I = 92.0%]. Continuing with postoperative injection or infusion reduced 24-h pain score with the pooled mean difference at rest of -1.50 [95% CI (-1.92 to -1.08); I = 60.5%]. There was no additional benefit in terms of pain relief during activity, opioid consumption, range of movement or LOS when LIA was used as an adjunct to regional anaesthesia. Four out of 735 patients receiving LIA reported deep knee infection, three of whom had had postoperative catheter placement. CONCLUSION: LIA is effective for acute pain management after TKA. Intraoperative peri-articular but not intra-articular injection may be helpful in pain control up to 24 h. The use of postoperative intra-articular catheter placement is still inconclusive. The benefit of LIA as an adjunctive treatment to regional anaesthesia was not demonstrated.

Lumbar Epidural Corticosteroid Injection Reduces Subacute Pain and Improves Knee Function in the First Six Weeks After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Double-Blinded Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain control immediately following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been a focus for orthopaedists. However, control of subacute pain, which may persist up to 3 months, is usually not optimized. The efficacy of epidural corticosteroids in reducing pain after surgery is documented, but data on their efficacy in controlling subacute pain after TKA are lacking. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of an epidural corticosteroid in controlling pain in the first 3 months following TKA using a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. METHODS: One hundred and eight patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who underwent TKA and received analgesic drugs through an epidural catheter for 48 hours were randomized to receive either 40 mg (1 mL) of triamcinolone acetonide plus 5 mL of 1% lidocaine, or 6 mL of 1% lidocaine alone before catheter removal. The outcomes of interest were pain level during motion and at rest, knee function, and range of motion, which were recorded up to 3 months after surgery. Multilevel regression models were used to estimate the differences between groups. RESULTS: The corticosteroid + lidocaine group had a lower average level of pain during motion compared with the lidocaine-only group, as measured by a visual analog scale (VAS), from day 3 to 7 weeks postoperatively (p < 0.05). At 7 weeks, the mean difference was -7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], -12.8 to -1.0 points; p = 0.033). The corticosteroid + lidocaine group also had a better mean overall modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at 6 weeks postoperatively (28 compared with 33 points; 95% CI, -8.6 to -0.6 points; p = 0.03). There was no difference between the groups in the level of pain at rest and knee range of motion during the 3-month period (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar epidural corticosteroid injection reduced pain during motion for 7 weeks and provided better knee function at 6 weeks postoperatively compared with lidocaine alone. There was no difference detected with respect to pain at rest and knee range of motion during the 3-month follow-up. Epidural corticosteroids could improve patient satisfaction during the early weeks of recovery after TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.