Periarticular Local Infiltrative Anesthesia and Regional Adductor Canal Block Provide Equivalent Pain Relief After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare postoperative pain and recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in patients who received an adductor canal block (ACB) or periarticular local infiltrative anesthesia (LIA). METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected ACL registry was performed. Patients underwent ACLR at a single institution between January 2015 and September 2020 and received long-acting local anesthesia with a preoperative ultrasound-guided ACB or periarticular LIA after surgery. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, milligram morphine equivalents (MME) consumed in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and total hospital recovery time were compared. Univariate analysis was used to compare VAS pain and MME totals between overall groups and groups propensity score matched for age, sex, body mass index, graft type, and meniscal treatment. Results are presented as mean (95%CI) unless otherwise indicated. RESULTS: There were 265 knees (253 patients) included (LIA, 157 knees; ACB, 108 knees). Overall, VAS pain scores before hospital discharge (LIA: 2.6 [2.4-2.8] vs ACB: 2.4 [2.1-2.7]; P = .334) and total MMEs were similar (LIA: 17.6 [16.4-18.8] vs ACB: 18.5 [17.2-19.8] (MME); P =.134). Median time to discharge also did not significantly differ (LIA: 137.5 [IQR: 116-178] vs. ACB: 147 [IQR: 123-183] (min); P = .118). Matched subanalysis (LIA and ACB; n = 94) did not reveal significant differences in VAS pain before discharge (LIA: 2.4 [2.1-2.7] vs ACB: 2.7 [2.4-3.0]; P = .134) or total MMEs (LIA: 18.6 (17.2-20.0) vs ACB: 17.9 (16.4-19.4); P = .520). CONCLUSION: The use of ACB or LIA resulted in similar early pain levels, opioid consumption, and hospital recovery times after ACLR surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparison study.

Non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials requiring biopsies with biomarker-specific results for enrollment provide unique challenges.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in lung cancer increasingly require patients to provide fresh tumor tissue as a prerequisite to enrollment. The effects of this requirement on enrollment rates, enrollment durations, and patient selection have not been fully elucidated. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed data generated by patients who consented to 1 or more interventional lung cancer clinical trials at the University of California-Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 2013 and December 2014. Trials were considered to require a biopsy when enrollment was conditional on the procurement of tissue without intervening therapy between procurement and enrollment. RESULTS: In total, 311 patients underwent 368 screening incidents for 1 or more of 19 trials. Trials that required a new biopsy had a longer median screening duration (34 vs 14 days) than trials that did not require a biopsy (P < .001). Trials that required a biopsy had a greater screen failure rate (49.1% vs 26.5%; P < .001), which was largely driven by patients who did not undergo the required biopsy or lacked the required biomarker. Worsening performance status led to the majority of screen failures (56.5%) among biomarker-eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although the scientific benefits of obtaining a new biopsy and requiring specific results for trial enrollment are clear, these requirements lead to a lengthening of the screening period, which, in some patients, is associated with clinical decline before enrollment. Implications for the interpretation of data from studies of this design should be explored. Cancer 2017;123:4800-7. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Performance of PROMIS for Healthy Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed as an extensive question bank with multiple health domains that could be utilized for computerized adaptive testing (CAT). In the present study, we investigated the use of the PROMIS Physical Function CAT (PROMIS PF CAT) in an otherwise healthy population scheduled to undergo surgery for meniscal injury with the hypotheses that (1) the PROMIS PF CAT would correlate strongly with patient-reported outcome instruments that measure physical function and would not correlate strongly with those that measure other health domains, (2) there would be no ceiling effects, and (3) the test burden would be significantly less than that of the traditional measures. METHODS: Patients scheduled to undergo meniscal surgery completed the PROMIS PF CAT, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Marx Knee Activity Rating Scale, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Correlations were defined as high (≥0.7), high-moderate (0.61 to 0.69), moderate (0.4 to 0.6), moderate-weak (0.31 to 0.39), or weak (≤0.3). If ≥15% respondents to a patient-reported outcome measure obtained the highest or lowest possible score, the instrument was determined to have a significant ceiling or floor effect. RESULTS: A total of 107 participants were analyzed. The PROMIS PF CAT had a high correlation with the SF-36 Physical Functioning (PF) (r = 0.82, p < 0.01) and KOOS Sport (r = 0.76, p < 0.01) scores; a high-moderate correlation with the KOOS Quality-of-Life (QOL) (r = 0.63, p < 0.01) and EQ-5D (r = 0.62, p < 0.01) instruments; and a moderate correlation with the SF-36 Pain (r = 0.60, p < 0.01), KOOS Symptoms (r = 0.57, p < 0.01), KOOS Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (r = 0.60, p < 0.01), and KOOS Pain (r = 0.60, p < 0.01) scores. The majority (89%) of the patients completed the PROMIS PF CAT after answering only 4 items. The PROMIS PF CAT had no floor or ceiling effects, with 0% of the participants achieving the lowest and highest score, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS PF CAT correlates strongly with currently used patient-reported outcome measures of physical function and demonstrates no ceiling effects for patients with meniscal injury requiring surgery. It may be a reasonable alternative to more burdensome patient-reported outcome measures.