Preemptive Analgesia in Hip Arthroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Preemptive Periacetabular or Intra-articular Bupivacaine in Addition to Postoperative Intra-articular Bupivacaine.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of intra-articular and periacetabular blocks for postoperative pain control after hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Forty-two consecutive patients scheduled for hip arthroscopy were randomized into 2 postoperative pain control groups. One group received preemptive intra-articular 20 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% injection, and the second group received preemptive periacetabular 20 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% injection. Before closure all patients received an additional dose of 20 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% intra-articularly. Data were compared with respect to postoperative pain with visual analog scale (VAS) and analgesic consumption, documented in a pain diary for 2 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were treated with intra-articular injection, and 21 patients with peri-acetabular injection. There were no significant differences with regards to patient demographics or surgical procedures. VAS scores recorded during the first 30 minutes postoperatively and 18 hours after surgery were significantly lower in the periacetabular group compared with in the intra-articular group (0.667 ± 1.49 vs 2.11 ± 2.29; P < .045 and 2.62 ± 2.2 vs 4.79 ± 2.6; P < .009). There were no differences between the groups with regard to analgesic consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Periacetabular injection of bupivacaine 0.5% was superior to intra-articular injection in pain reduction after hip arthroscopy at 30 minutes and 18 hours postoperatively. However, total analgesic consumption over the first 2 postoperative weeks and VAS pain measurements were not significantly affected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Spinal Epidural Abscess: A Review of Presentation, Management, and Medicolegal Implications.

Spinal epidural abscess (SEA) is a rare condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in diagnostic medicine, early recognition of SEAs remains elusive. The vague presentation of the disease, coupled with its numerous risk factors, the diagnostic requirement for obtaining advanced imaging, and the necessity of specialized care constitute extraordinary challenges to both diagnosis and treatment of SEA. Once diagnosed, SEAs require urgent or emergent medical and/or surgical management. As SEAs are a relatively rare pathology, high-quality data are limited and there is no consensus on their optimal management. This paper focuses on presenting the treatment modalities that have been successful in the management of SEAs and providing a critical assessment of how specific SEA characteristics may render one infection more amenable to primary surgical or medical interventions. This paper reviews the relevant history, epidemiology, clinical presentation, radiology, microbiology, and treatment of SEAs and concludes by addressing the medicolegal implications of delayed treatment of the disease.