Is There a Benefit for Liposomal Bupivacaine Compared to a Traditional Periarticular Injection in Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients With a History of Chronic Opioid Use?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) poses a major challenge. It delays mobilization, increases opioid consumption and side effects, and lengthens hospitalization. This challenge multiplies when treating an opioid-dependent population. We examined whether a novel suspended release local anesthetic, liposomal bupivacaine (LB) would improve pain control and decrease opioid consumption after TKA compared to a standard periarticular injection in opioid-dependent patients. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients undergoing TKA were randomly assigned to receive either a periarticular injection (PAI) with LB (n = 20) or with a standard PAI (including a combination of ropivacaine, clonidine, Toradol, Epinepherine, and saline; n = 18) as part of a multimodal pain management approach. All periarticular injections were done by a single surgeon. Perioperative treatment was similar between groups. Postoperative information regarding pain level was evaluated by a pain visual analog scale score. Postoperative opioid consumption was recorded. RESULTS: After controlling baseline narcotic usage before surgery, no differences were found between groups in daily postoperative narcotic usage (P = .113), average daily pain score (P = .332), or maximum daily pain score (P = .881). However, when examining pain levels separately for each day, pain visual analog scale scores were reported higher in post operative day 1 in the LB group (P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: LB was not found to be superior to standard PAI in opioid-dependent patients undergoing TKA. This patient population continues to present a challenge even with modern multimodal pain protocols.

Invasive candidosis: contrasting the perceptions of infectious disease physicians and intensive care physicians.

INTRODUCTION: We analyze how infectious disease physicians perceive and manage invasive candidosis in Brazil, in comparison to intensive care unit specialists. METHODS: A 38-question survey was administered to 56 participants. Questions involved clinicians' perceptions of the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and prophylaxis of invasive candidosis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The perception that candidemia not caused by Candida albicans occurs in less than 10% of patients is more commonly held by intensive care unit specialists (p=0.018). Infectious disease physicians almost always use antifungal drugs in the treatment of patients with candidemia, and antifungal drugs are not as frequently prescribed by intensive care unit specialists (p=0.006). Infectious disease physicians often do not use voriconazole when a patient's antifungal treatment has failed with fluconazole, which also differs from the behavior of intensive care unit specialists (p=0.019). Many intensive care unit specialists use fluconazole to treat candidemia in neutropenic patients previously exposed to fluconazole, in contrast to infectious disease physicians (p=0.024). Infectious disease physicians prefer echinocandins as a fi rst choice in the treatment of unstable neutropenic patients more frequently than intensive care unit specialists (p=0.013). When candidemia is diagnosed, most infectious disease physicians perform fundoscopy (p=0.015), whereas intensive care unit specialists usually perform echocardiograms on all patients (p=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a need to better educate physicians in Brazil regarding invasive candidosis. The appropriate management of this disease depends on more drug options being available in our country in addition to global coverage in private and public hospitals, thereby improving health care.

Invasive candidosis: contrasting the perceptions of infectious disease physicians and intensive care physicians

Introduction We analyze how infectious disease physicians perceive and manage invasive candidosis in Brazil, in comparison to intensive care unit specialists. Methods A 38-question survey was administered to 56 participants. Questions involved clinicians' perceptions of the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and prophylaxis of invasive candidosis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The perception that candidemia not caused by Candida albicans occurs in less than 10% of patients is more commonly held by intensive care unit specialists (p=0.018). Infectious disease physicians almost always use antifungal drugs in the treatment of patients with candidemia, and antifungal drugs are not as frequently prescribed by intensive care unit specialists (p=0.006). Infectious disease physicians often do not use voriconazole when a patient's antifungal treatment has failed with fluconazole, which also differs from the behavior of intensive care unit specialists (p=0.019). Many intensive care unit specialists use fluconazole to treat candidemia in neutropenic patients previously exposed to fluconazole, in contrast to infectious disease physicians (p=0.024). Infectious disease physicians prefer echinocandins as a first choice in the treatment of unstable neutropenic patients more frequently than intensive care unit specialists (p=0.013). When candidemia is diagnosed, most infectious disease physicians perform fundoscopy (p=0.015), whereas intensive care unit specialists usually perform echocardiograms on all patients (p=0.054). Conclusions This study reveals a need to better educate physicians in Brazil regarding invasive candidosis. The appropriate management of this disease depends on more drug options being available in our country in addition to global coverage in private and public hospitals, thereby improving health care. .