What Is the Role of a Periarticular Injection for Knee Arthroplasty Patients Receiving a Multimodal Analgesia Regimen Incorporating Adductor Canal and Infiltration Between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Knee Blocks? A Randomized Blinded Placebo-Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal analgesic protocols for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients remain controversial. Multimodal analgesia is advocated, often including peripheral nerve blocks and/or periarticular injections (PAIs). If 2 blocks (adductor canal block [ACB] plus infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the knee [IPACK]) are used, also performing PAI may not be necessary. This noninferiority trial hypothesized that TKA patients with ACB + IPACK + saline PAI (sham infiltration) would have pain scores that were no worse than those of patients with ACB + IPACK + active PAI with local anesthetic. METHODS: A multimodal analgesic protocol of spinal anesthesia, ACB and IPACK blocks, intraoperative ketamine and ketorolac, postoperative ketorolac followed by meloxicam, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and oral opioids was used. Patients undergoing primary unilateral TKA were randomized to receive either active PAI or control PAI. The active PAI included a deep injection, performed before cementation, of bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine, 30 mL; morphine; methylprednisolone; cefazolin; with normal saline to bring total volume to 64 mL. A superficial injection of 20 mL bupivacaine, 0.25%, was administered before closure. Control injections were normal saline injected with the same injection technique and volumes. The primary outcome was numeric rating scale pain with ambulation on postoperative day 1. A noninferiority margin of 1.0 was used. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were randomized. NRS pain with ambulation at POD1 in the ACB + IPACK + saline PAI group was not found to be noninferior to that of the ACB + IPACK + active PAI group (difference = 0.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], [-0.9 to 1.5], P = .120). Pain scores at rest did not differ significantly among groups. No significant difference was observed in opioid consumption between groups. Cumulative oral morphine equivalents through postoperative day 2 were 89 ± 40 mg (mean ± standard deviation), saline PAI, vs 73 ± 52, active PAI, P = .1. No significant differences were observed for worst pain, fraction of time in severe pain, pain interference, side-effects (nausea, drowsiness, itching, dizziness), quality of recovery, satisfaction, length of stay, chronic pain, and orthopedic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For TKA patients given a comprehensive analgesic protocol, use of saline PAI did not demonstrate noninferiority compared to active PAI. Neither the primary nor any secondary outcomes demonstrated superiority for active PAI, however. As we cannot claim either technique to be better or worse, there remains flexibility for use of either technique.

Effect of Duloxetine on Opioid Use and Pain After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Triple-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine, a serotonin-norepinephrine dual reuptake inhibitor, may improve analgesia after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Previous studies had one primary outcome, did not consistently use multimodal analgesia, and used patient-controlled analgesia devices, potentially delaying discharge. We investigated whether duloxetine would reduce opioid consumption or pain with ambulation. METHODS: A total of 160 patients received 60 mg duloxetine or placebo daily, starting from the day of surgery and continuing 14 days postoperatively. Patients received neuraxial anesthesia, peripheral nerve blocks, acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and oral opioids as needed. The dual primary outcomes were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores with movement on postoperative days 1, 2, and 14, and cumulative opioid consumption surgery through postoperative day 14. RESULTS: Duloxetine was noninferior to placebo for both primary outcomes and was superior to placebo for opioid consumption. Opioid consumption (mean ± SD) was 288 ± 226 mg OME [94, 385] vs 432 ± 374 [210, 540] (duloxetine vs placebo) P = .0039. Pain scores on POD14 were 4.2 ± 2.0 vs 4.8 ± 2.2 (duloxetine vs placebo) P = .018. Median satisfaction with pain management was 10 (8, 10) and 8 (7, 10) (duloxetine vs placebo) P = .046. Duloxetine reduced interference by pain with walking, normal work, and sleep. CONCLUSION: The 29% reduction in opioid use corresponds to 17 fewer pills of oxycodone, 5 mg, and was achieved without increasing pain scores. Considering the ongoing opioid epidemic, duloxetine can be used to reduce opioid usage after knee arthroplasty in selected patients that can be appropriately monitored for potential side effects of the medication.

Clinical care pathways for ambulatory total shoulder arthroplasty.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is growing in popularity and is increasingly done on an ambulatory basis. This review examines recent developments in anesthesia and analgesia for ambulatory shoulder surgery. Pathway components are discussed and a sample pathway is described. RECENT FINDINGS: Adoption of pathways for shoulder surgery improves patient experience by reducing pain, opioid use, and side effects while improving patient satisfaction. Long-acting nerve blockade using adjuvants like dexamethasone provide long-lasting analgesia without rebound pain. Peripheral nerve blockade provides better analgesia than peri-articular injection of local anesthetic. There are multiple approaches to nerve blockade for shoulder surgery to consider, including interscalene, superior trunk, supraclavicular, and anterior suprascapular nerve blocks. Multimodal analgesia should include acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, but routine gabapentinoids should not be used. SUMMARY: Anesthesiologists should lead the way to create and implement pathways for ambulatory total shoulder arthroplasty, incorporating appropriate patient selection, patient education, long-lasting nerve blockade, and multimodal analgesia.

A Comprehensive Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Rotator Cuff Surgery Reduces Pain, Opioid Use, and Side Effects.

BACKGROUND: Patients often have moderate to severe pain after rotator cuff surgery, despite receiving analgesics and nerve blocks. There are many suggested ways to improve pain after rotator cuff surgery, but the effects of adopting a pathway that includes formal patient education, a long-acting nerve block, and extensive multimodal analgesia are unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does adoption of a clinical pathway incorporating patient education, a long-acting nerve block, and preemptive multimodal analgesia reduce the worst pain during the first 48 hours after surgery compared with current standard institutional practices? (2) Does adoption of the pathway reduce opioid use? (3) Does adoption of the pathway reduce side effects and improve patient-oriented outcomes? METHODS: From September 2018 to January 2020, 281 patients scheduled for arthroscopic ambulatory rotator cuff surgery were identified for this paired sequential prospective cohort study. Among patients in the control group, 177 were identified, 33% (58) were not eligible, for 11% (20) staff was not available, 56% (99) were approached, 16% (29) declined, 40% (70) enrolled, and 40% (70) were analyzed (2% [4] lost to follow-up for secondary outcomes after postoperative day 2). For patients in the pathway cohort, 104 were identified, 17% (18) were not eligible, for 11% (11) staff was not available, 72% (75) were approached, 5% (5) declined, 67% (70) enrolled, and 67% (70) were analyzed (3% [3] lost to follow-up for secondary outcomes after postoperative day 2). No patients were lost to follow-up for primary outcome; for secondary outcomes, four were lost in the control group and three in the pathway group after postoperative day 2 (p = 0.70). The initial 70 patients enrolled received routine care (control group), and in a subsequent cohort, 70 patients received care guided by a pathway (pathway group). Of the 205 eligible patients, 68% (140) were included in the analysis. This was not a study comparing two tightly defined protocols but rather a study to determine whether adoption of a pathway would alter patient outcomes. For this reason, we used a pragmatic (real-world) study design that did not specify how control patients would be treated, and it did not require that all pathway patients receive all components of the pathway. We developed the pathway in coordination with a group of surgeons and anesthesiologists who agreed to apply the pathway as much as was viewed practical for each individual patient. Patients in both groups received a brachial plexus nerve block with sedation. Major differences between the pathway and control groups were: detailed patient education regarding reasonable pain expectations with a goal of reducing opioid use (no formal educational presentation was given to the control), a long-acting nerve block using bupivacaine with dexamethasone (control patients often received shorter-acting local anesthetic without perineural dexamethasone), and preemptive multimodal analgesia including intraoperative ketamine, postoperative acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and gabapentin at bedtime, with opioids as needed (control patients received postoperative opioids but most did not get postoperative NSAIDS and no controls received gabapentin or separate prescriptions for acetaminophen). The primary outcome was the numerical rating scale (NRS) worst pain with movement 0 to 48 hours after block placement. The NRS pain score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain possible). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) [12] for NRS that was used for calculation of the study sample size was 1.3 [18], although some authors suggest 1 [13] or 2 [5] are appropriate; if we had used an MCID of 2, the sample size would have been smaller. Secondary outcomes included NRS pain scores at rest, daily opioid use (postoperative day 1, 2, 7, 14), block duration, patient-oriented pain questions (postoperative day 1, 2, 7, 14), and patient and physician adherence to pathway. RESULTS: On postoperative day 1, pathway patients had lower worst pain with movement (3.3 ± 3.1) compared with control patients (5.6 ± 3.0, mean difference -2.7 [95% CI -3.7 to -1.7]; p < 0.001); lower scores were also seen for pain at rest (1.9 ± 2.3 versus 4.0 ± 2.9, mean difference -2.0 [95% CI -2.8 to -1.3]; p < 0.001). Cumulative postoperative opioid use (0-48 hours) was reduced (pathway oral morphine equivalent use was 23 ± 28 mg versus 44 ± 35 mg, mean difference 21 [95% CI 10 to 32]; p < 0.01). The greatest difference in opioid use was in the first 24 hours after surgery (pathway 7 ± 12 mg versus control 21 ± 21 mg, mean difference -14 [95% CI -19 to -10]; p < 0.01). On postoperative day 1, pathway patients had less interference with staying asleep compared with control patients (0.5 ± 1.6 versus 2.6 ± 3.3, mean difference -2.2 [95% CI -3.3 to -1.1]; p < 0.001); lower scores were also seen for interference with activities (0.9 ± 2.3 versus 1.9 ± 2.9, mean difference -1.1 [95% CI -2 to -0.1]; p = 0.03). Satisfaction with pain treatment on postoperative day 1 was higher among pathway patients compared with control patients (9.2 ± 1.7 versus 8.2 ± 2.5, mean difference 1.0 [95% CI 0.3 to 1.8]; p < 0.001). On postoperative day 2, pathway patients had lower nausea scores compared with control patients (0.3 ± 1.1 versus 1 ± 2.1, mean difference -0.7 [95% CI -1.2 to -0.1]; p = 0.02); lower scores were also seen for drowsiness on postoperative day 1 (1.7 ± 2.7 versus 2.6 ± 2.6, mean difference -0.9 [95% CI - 1.7 to -0.1]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Adoption of the pathway was associated with improvement in the primary outcome (pain with movement) that exceeded the MCID. Patients in the pathway group had improved patient-oriented outcomes and fewer side effects. This pathway uses multiple analgesic drugs, which may pose risks to elderly patients, in particular. Therefore, in evaluating whether to use this pathway, clinicians should weigh the effect sizes against the potential risks that may emerge with large scale use, consider the difficulties involved in adapting a pathway to local practice so that pathway will persist, and recognize that this study only enrolled patients among surgeons and the anesthesiologists that advocated for the pathway; results may have been different with less enthusiastic clinicians. This pathway, based on a long-lasting nerve block, multimodal analgesia, and patient education can be considered for adoption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Addition of Infiltration Between the Popliteal Artery and the Capsule of the Posterior Knee and Adductor Canal Block to Periarticular Injection Enhances Postoperative Pain Control in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Periarticular injections (PAIs) are becoming a staple component of multimodal joint pathways. Motor-sparing peripheral nerve blocks, such as the infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee (IPACK) and the adductor canal block (ACB), may augment PAI in multimodal analgesic pathways for knee arthroplasty, but supporting literature remains rare. We hypothesized that the addition of ACB and IPACK to PAI would lower pain on ambulation on postoperative day (POD) 1 compared to PAI alone. METHODS: This triple-blinded randomized controlled trial included 86 patients undergoing unilateral total knee arthroplasty. Patients either received (1) a PAI (control group, n = 43) or (2) an IPACK with an ACB and modified PAI (intervention group, n = 43). The primary outcome was pain on ambulation on POD 1. Secondary outcomes included numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores, patient satisfaction, and opioid consumption. RESULTS: The intervention group reported significantly lower NRS pain scores on ambulation than the control group on POD 1 (difference in means [95% confidence interval], -3.3 [-4.0 to -2.7]; P < .001). In addition, NRS pain scores on ambulation on POD 0 (-3.5 [-4.3 to -2.7]; P < .001) and POD 2 (-1.0 [-1.9 to -0.1]; P = .033) were significantly lower. Patients in the intervention group were more satisfied, had less opioid consumption (P = .005, postanesthesia care unit, P = .028, POD 0), less intravenous opioids (P < .001), and reduced need for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (P = .037). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of IPACK and ACB to PAI significantly improves analgesia and reduces opioid consumption after total knee arthroplasty compared to PAI alone. This study strongly supports IPACK and ACB use within a multimodal analgesic pathway.

What Pain Levels Do TSA Patients Experience When Given a Long-acting Nerve Block and Multimodal Analgesia?

BACKGROUND: The pain experience for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) patients in the first 2 weeks after surgery has not been well described. Many approaches to pain management have been used, with none emerging as clearly superior; it is important that any approach minimizes postoperative opioid use. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) With a long-acting nerve block and comprehensive multimodal analgesia, what are the pain levels after TSA from day of surgery until postoperative day (POD) 14? (2) How many opioids do TSA patients take from the day of surgery until POD 14? (3) What are the PainOUT responses at POD 1 and POD 14, focusing on side effects from opioids usage? METHODS: From January 27, 2017 to December 6, 2017, 154 TSA patients were identified as potentially eligible for this prospective, institutional review board-approved observational study. Of those, 46 patients (30%) were excluded (either because they were deemed not appropriate for the study, research staff were not available, patients were not eligible, or they declined to participate), and another six (4%) had incomplete followup data and could not be studied, leaving 102 patients (66%) for analysis here. Median preoperative pain with movement was 7 (interquartile range [IQR], 5-9) and 13 of 102 patients used preoperative opioids. All patients received a single-injection bupivacaine interscalene block with adjuvant clonidine, dexamethasone, and buprenorphine. Multimodal analgesia included acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and opioids. The primary outcome was the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score with movement on POD 14. The NRS pain score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain possible). Secondary outcomes included NRS pain scores at rest and with movement (day of surgery, and PODs 1, 3, 7 and 14), daily analgesic use from day of surgery to POD 14 (both oral and intravenous), Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (which assesses 12 symptoms ranging from 0 to 4, with 4 being the most distressing; the composite score is the mean of the 12 symptom-specific scores) on POD 1, and the PainOut questionnaire on POD 1 and POD 14. The PainOut questionnaire includes questions rating nausea, drowsiness, itching from 0 (none) to 10 (severe), as well as rating difficulty staying asleep from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes). RESULTS: The median NRS pain scores with movement were 2 (IQR, 0-5) on POD 1, 5 (IQR, 3-6) on POD 3, and the pain score was 3 (IQR, 1-5) on POD 14. Median total opioid use (converted to oral morphine equivalents) was 16 mg (4-50 mg) for the first 24 hours, 30 mg (8-63 mg) for the third, and 0 mg (0-20 mg) by the eighth 24-hour period, while the most frequent number of activations of the intravenous patient-controlled analgesia device was 0. Median PainOut scores on POD 1 and POD 14 for sleep interference, nausea, drowsiness and itching were 0, and the median composite Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale score on day 1 was 0.3 (IQR, 0.1-0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians using this protocol, which combines a long-acting, single-injection nerve block with multimodal analgesia, can inform TSA patients that their postoperative pain will likely be less than their preoperative pain, and that on average they will stop using opioids after 7 days. Future research could investigate what the individual components of this protocol contribute. Larger cohort studies or registries would document the incidence of rare complications. Randomized controlled trials could directly compare analgesic effectiveness and cost-benefits for this protocol versus alternative strategies, such as perineural catheters or liposomal bupivacaine. Perhaps most importantly, future studies could seek ways to further reduce peak pain and opioid usage on POD 2 and POD 3. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Intravenous vs Oral Acetaminophen as a Component of Multimodal Analgesia After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Blinded Trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia including acetaminophen is increasingly popular for analgesia after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Intravenous (IV) administration of acetaminophen has pharmacokinetic benefits, but unclear clinical advantages. The authors hypothesized that IV acetaminophen would reduce pain with activity, opioid usage, or opioid-related side effects, compared to oral acetaminophen. METHODS: In this double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial, 154 THA patients received either IV or oral acetaminophen as part of a comprehensive opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia strategy. Primary outcomes were pain with physical therapy on postoperative day (POD) 1, opioid side effects (POD 1), and cumulative opioid use. RESULTS: There was no difference in opioid side effects, pain scores, or opioid use between the groups. CONCLUSION: Patients in both groups had low pain scores, minimal opioid side effects, and limited opioid usage (corresponding to 6 doses of tramadol 100 mg over 3 days). This highlights multimodal analgesia as an effective method of pain control for THA.

Readiness for Discharge After Foot and Ankle Surgery Using Peripheral Nerve Blocks: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Spinal and General Anesthesia as Supplements to Nerve Blocks.

BACKGROUND: Neuraxial anesthesia is often viewed as superior to general anesthesia but may delay discharge. Comparisons do not typically use multimodal analgesics and nerve blockade. Combining nerve blockade with general anesthesia may reduce pain, opioid consumption, and nausea. We hypothesized that general anesthesia (with nerve blocks) would lead to earlier readiness for discharge, compared to spinal anesthesia (with nerve blocks). METHODS: All patients underwent ambulatory foot and ankle surgery, with a predicted case duration of 1-3 hours. All patients received popliteal and adductor canal nerve blocks using bupivacaine and dexamethasone. No intraoperative opioids were administered. All patients received ondansetron, dexamethasone, ketamine, and ketorolac. Patients, data collectors, and the data analyst were not informed of group assignment. Patients were randomized to spinal or general anesthesia with concealed allocation. Spinal anesthesia was performed with mepivacaine and accompanied with propofol sedation. After general anesthesia was induced with propofol, a laryngeal mask airway was inserted, followed by sevoflurane and propofol. Time until ready for discharge, the primary outcome, was compared between groups after adjusting for age and surgery time using multivariable unconditional quantile regression. Secondary outcomes compared at multiple timepoints were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni step-down procedure. RESULTS: General anesthesia patients were ready for discharge at a median of 39 minutes earlier (95% confidence interval, 2-75; P = .038) versus spinal anesthesia patients. Patients in both groups met readiness criteria for discharge substantially before actual discharge. Pain scores at rest were higher among general anesthesia patients 1 hour after leaving the operating room (adjusted difference in means, 2.1 [95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.2]; P < .001). Other secondary outcomes (including opioid use, opioid side effects, nausea, headache, sore throat, and back pain) were not different. CONCLUSIONS: General anesthesia was associated with earlier readiness for discharge, but the difference may not be clinically significant and did not lead to earlier actual discharge. Most secondary outcomes were not different between groups. The choice of spinal or general anesthesia as an adjunct to peripheral nerve blockade can reflect patient, clinician, and institutional preferences.

Perineural dexamethasone with subsartorial saphenous nerve blocks in ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Subsartorial saphenous nerve blockade (SSNB) is an effective analgesic alternative to femoral nerve blockade after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with bone-tendon-bone (BTB) autograft. It was hypothesized that dexamethasone in a SSNB will prolong analgesia, improve pain and satisfaction, and reduce postoperative opioid requirements and side effects. METHODS: One hundred ninety-five patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with BTB autograft (ages 16-65) were enrolled. Subjects received SSNB with 13 ml of 0.5 % bupivacaine (control group), 1 mg preservative-free dexamethasone +0.5 % bupivacaine (treatment group I), or 4 mg preservative-free dexamethasone +0.5 % bupivacaine (treatment group II). Subjects received identical perioperative management. On postoperative days 1 and 2, subjects reported perceived block duration, pain scores, satisfaction, opioid use, and side effects. Cox-proportional hazards modelling was used to compare block duration, adjusting for body mass index, age, sex, tourniquet time, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and intravenous dexamethasone dose. RESULTS: Patient-perceived block duration was significantly increased in treatment group I [hazard ratio (95 % confidence interval [CI]) 0.48 (0.31-0.75); P = 0.001] and treatment group II (hazard ratio (95 % CI): 0.52 (0.33-0.81); P = 0.004) compared to control. The block was extended from a median (95 % CI) of 33.1 (28.4-37.3) to 41.2 (32.4-50.9) and 46.5 (35.8-48.9) hours, respectively. Additionally, patients in treatment group II reported increased time that block provided pain relief, higher patient satisfaction, lower pain scores at rest, and decreased drowsiness and confusion. CONCLUSION: The addition of 1 and 4 mg of dexamethasone to the block injectate significantly increased SSNB duration by 8-13 h compared to control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level 1.

Duloxetine and Subacute Pain after Knee Arthroplasty when Added to a Multimodal Analgesic Regimen: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Triple-blinded Trial.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine is effective for chronic musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain, but there are insufficient data to recommend the use of antidepressants for postoperative pain. The authors hypothesized that administration of duloxetine for 15 days would reduce pain with ambulation at 2 weeks after total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: In this triple-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, patients received either duloxetine or placebo for 15 days, starting from the day of surgery. Patients also received a comprehensive multimodal analgesic regimen including neuraxial anesthesia, epidural analgesia, an adductor canal block, meloxicam, and oxycodone/acetaminophen as needed. The primary outcome was the pain score (0 to 10 numeric rating scale) with ambulation on postoperative day 14. RESULTS: One hundred six patients were randomized and analyzed. On day 14, duloxetine had no effect on pain with ambulation; mean pain was 3.8 (SD, 2.3) for placebo versus 3.5 (SD, 2.1) for duloxetine (difference in means [95% CI], 0.4 [-0.5 to 1.2]; P = 0.386). Symptoms potentially attributable to duloxetine discontinuation at study drug completion (nausea, anxiety) occurred among nine patients (duloxetine) and five patients (placebo); this was not statistically significant (P = 0.247). Statistically significant secondary outcomes included opioid consumption (difference in mean milligram oral morphine equivalents [95% CI], 8.7 [3.3 to 14.1], P = 0.002 by generalized estimating equation) over the postoperative period and nausea on day 1 (P = 0.040). There was no difference in other side effects or in anxiety and depression scores. CONCLUSIONS: When included as a part of a multimodal analgesic regimen for knee arthroplasty, duloxetine does not reduce subacute pain with ambulation.

Buprenorphine, Clonidine, Dexamethasone, and Ropivacaine for Interscalene Nerve Blockade: A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Ropivacaine Dose-Response Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated interscalene block for shoulder arthroplasty with various ropivacaine concentrations in the presence of clonidine, dexamethasone, and buprenorphine. The goal was prolonged analgesia with minimal motor blockade. DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: University-affiliated orthopedic hospital. METHODS: Patients (20/group) received acetaminophen, ketorolac, pregabalin, opioids, and "Control"; interscalene block, 0.375% ropivacaine, intravenous additives (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone); "High Dose"; 0.375% ropivacaine, perineural additives; "Medium Dose"; 0.2% ropivacaine, perineural additives; and "Low Dose"; 0.1% ropivacaine, perineural additives. RESULTS: Pain with movement at 24 hours was 4.9 ± 2.5 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) (Control), 4.5 ± 3.0 (High Dose), 3.4 ± 1.8 (Medium Dose), 4.2 ± 2.4 (Low Dose). The difference between Medium Dose and Control was -1.5 (95% CI: -2.9, -0.1) (P = 0.040). Median time until need for opioids was 16.1 hours (Control) vs 23.7 hours (High Dose); hazard ratio 0.37 [95% CI: 0.17, 0.79]. High Dose had less pain with movement the morning after surgery, vs Control; 2.9 ± 2.5 vs 4.9 ± 2.7; P = 0.027. Pain with movement in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit was higher in Low Dose, vs Control; 0.9 ± 1.4 vs 0 ± 0, P = 0.009. Low Dose had superior hand strength in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (mean ± SD of pre-operative strength: 44.0 ± 20.3%) compared to Control (27.5 ± 24.5%) (P = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: For maximum pain reduction, combining perineural additives with ropivacaine 0.375% or 0.2% is suggested. To minimize motor blockade, perineural additives can be combined with ropivacaine, 0.1%.

Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This prospective double-blinded, randomized controlled trial compared adductor canal block (ACB) with femoral nerve block (FNB) in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. The authors hypothesized that ACB, compared with FNB, would exhibit less quadriceps weakness and demonstrate noninferior pain score and opioid consumption at 6 to 8 h postanesthesia. METHODS: Patients received an ACB or FNB as a component of a multimodal analgesic. Quadriceps strength, pain score, and opioid consumption were assessed on both legs preoperatively and at 6 to 8, 24, and 48 h postanesthesia administration. In a joint hypothesis test, noninferiority was first evaluated on the primary outcomes of strength, pain score, and opioid consumption at 6 to 8 h; superiority on each outcome at 6 to 8 h was then assessed only if noninferiority was established. RESULTS: Forty-six patients received ACB; 47 patients received FNB. At 6 to 8 h postanesthesia, ACB patients had significantly higher median dynamometer readings versus FNB patients (median [interquartile range], 6.1 kgf [3.5, 10.9] (ACB) vs. 0 kgf [0.0, 3.9] (FNB); P < 0.0001), but was not inferior to FNB with regard to Numeric Rating Scale pain scores (1.0 [0.0, 3.5] ACB vs. 0.0 [0.0, 1.0] FNB; P = 0.019), or to opioid consumption (32.2 [22.4, 47.5] ACB vs. 26.6 [19.6, 49.0]; P = 0.0115). At 24 and 48 h postanesthesia, there was no significant statistical difference in dynamometer results, pain scores, or opioid use between the two groups. CONCLUSION: At 6 to 8 h postanesthesia, the ACB, compared with the FNB, exhibited early relative sparing of quadriceps strength and was not inferior in both providing analgesia or opioid intake.

Association of obesity with inflammation and pain after total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity is increasing, and obesity often leads to degenerative joint disease requiring total hip arthroplasty (THA). Obesity is a proinflammatory state associated with an increase in chronic, low-grade inflammatory response. As such, it may augment the postoperative inflammatory response, which has been associated with postoperative pain and complications. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined whether severity of obesity was associated with (1) severity of inflammatory response, as measured by the in vivo circulating levels of cytokines and ex vivo functional reactivity of mononuclear blood cells, and (2) severity of pain, as measured by verbal pain scores and analgesic consumption, in the first 24 hours after THA. METHODS: We studied 60 patients (20 normal weight, 20 overweight, 20 obese) undergoing elective primary unilateral THA in this prospective cross-sectional study. Blood samples were collected for C-reactive protein and cytokine levels, including IL-1ß, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), from patients before and 24 hours after surgery. Cytokine response of whole blood was evaluated ex vivo with or without two standard activators, phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate and lipopolysaccharide, using standardized blood sample from patients at 24 hours. These standard immune activators are implicated in the inflammatory response to gram-negative infection, translocation of microbial products, pathophysiology of septic shock syndrome in human, and tumor promotion. Pain response was gauged using verbal pain scores (on a 0- to 10-point scale, where 0 = no pain and 10 = worst pain) at rest and with activity at 24 hours after surgery and analgesic consumption of volume of epidural analgesic solution for the first 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS: No correlation was found between BMI and postoperative spontaneous circulating cytokine levels. However, after activation of blood leukocytes with lipopolysaccharide, there was a significant positive correlation between the BMI and IL-1ß, IL-6, and TNF-α levels (r = 0.26-0.32; p = 0.03, p = 0.03, and p = 0.01, respectively), suggesting priming of the innate immune system in obesity and potential for excessive postoperative inflammatory response. Obesity was not associated with increased pain or analgesic consumption in the first 24 hours after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is associated with a proinflammatory state after THA as demonstrated by enhanced cytokine reactivity. Larger studies exploring the specific impact of obesity and inflammation on surgical outcomes, including pain, are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Lumbar plexus blockade reduces pain after hip arthroscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy causes moderate to severe postoperative pain. We hypothesized that performance of a lumbar plexus block (LPB) would reduce postoperative pain in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) for patients discharged home on the day of surgery. METHODS: Patients received a combined spinal epidural with IV sedation, ondansetron, and ketorolac. Half of the patients (n = 42) also underwent a single-injection bupivacaine LPB. Postoperative analgesia (PACU and after discharge) was provided with oral hydrocodone/acetaminophen (5/500 mg) and an oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug. IV hydromorphone was given as needed in the PACU. RESULTS: The LPB reduced pain at rest in the PACU (GEE: ß estimate of the mean on a 0 to 10 scale = -0.9; 95% confidence interval = -1.7 to -0.1; P = 0.037). Mean PACU pain scores at rest were reduced by the LPB from 4.2 to 3.3 (P = 0.048, 95% confidence interval for difference = 0.007-1.8; uncorrected for multiple values per patient, using independent samples t test for preliminary evaluation comparing pain between the groups). There were no statistically significant differences in PACU analgesic usage, PACU pain with movement, and patient satisfaction. No permanent adverse events occurred, but 2 LPB patients fell in the PACU bathroom, without injury. Three unplanned admissions occurred; one LPB patient was admitted for epidural spread and urinary retention. Two control patients were admitted, one for oxygen desaturation and one for pain and nausea. CONCLUSION: LPB resulted in statistically significant reductions in PACU resting pain after hip arthroscopy, but the absence of improvement in most secondary outcomes suggests that assessment of risks and benefits of LPB should be individualized.

Liposomal Bupivacaine Plus Bupivacaine Versus Ropivacaine Plus Dexamethasone Brachial Plexus Blockade for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: An Unblinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

Brachial plexus blockade is utilized for pain control during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate brachial plexus blockade with liposomal bupivacaine plus bupivacaine (LB+B) as compared with ropivacaine plus dexamethasone (R+D) for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Our hypothesis was that the use of LB+B would result in lower pain scores and opioid consumption as compared with R+D. Methods: We performed a randomized controlled trial of 45 patients receiving ultrasound-guided brachial plexus blockade with LB+B and 44 patients receiving R+D prior to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The "worst pain" score in a 24-hour period, oral morphine equivalent dose (OMED), and overall benefit of analgesia score (OBAS) were recorded for 8 days following surgery. Results: Patient-reported "worst pain" was significantly lower in the LB+B group as compared with the R+D group on postoperative day 0 through day 5. OMED was significantly less for all 8 days studied, with an average cumulative 8-day OMED of 48.5 milligram equivalents in the LB+B group as compared with 190.1 milligram equivalents in the R+D group (p < 0.001). The OBAS score was significantly lower in the LB+B group as compared with R+D group on all postoperative days. The use of LB+B for brachial plexus blockade resulted in a 4% complication rate in a population of patients predominantly with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores of 1 and 2. Conclusions: The use of LB+B for brachial plexus blockade during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was associated with a significant and sustained decrease in the "worst pain" score, opioid consumption, and OBAS compared with R+D. LB+B for brachial plexus blockade also exhibited a strong safety profile. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.