RESUMEN
Background: Controversies remain on the best surgical approaches for unilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA). There are little data on simultaneous bilateral THA via direct anterior approach (SimBDAA-THA) or posterolateral approach (SimBPA-THA). Purpose: We sought to assess differences in perioperative outcomes and early medical and surgical complications between SimBDAA-THA and SimBPA-THA. Methods: This retrospective study involved patients who underwent either SimBDAA-THA in a supine position (n = 73) or SimBPA-THA in a lateral position (n = 162) at our institution from January 2015 to November 2021. The 2 groups were compared in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics, surgical parameters, and complications during 6-months of follow-up. Results: There were no differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between the 2 groups prior to surgery. Simultaneous bilateral THA via direct anterior approach significantly shortened the length of both the operation (117.50 ±19.42 vs 143.97 ± 32.20 min) and the hospitalization (140.64 ± 43.22 vs 156.24 ± 56.64 h) but increased perioperative loss of hemoglobin (3.28 ± 1.01 vs 3.21 ± 2.26 g/dL). There were no significant differences between the two groups in transfusion rate; levels of interleukin-6, C-reactive protein or creatine kinase; or complications. Conclusion: This retrospective study of patients at a single institution found minimal differences in perioperative outcomes or early medical and surgical complications between SimBDAA-THA and SimBPA-THA except operative time and length of hospitalization. Larger studies with longer follow-up should be conducted to identify whether a direct anterior approach is superior to a posterolateral one.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the minimum effective concentration (MEC90, defined as effective in 90% of patients) of ropivacaine during the combined procedure of adductor canal block (ACB) and infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee (IPACK) block for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized dose-finding trial was based on a biased coin up-and-down sequential design, where the concentration of ropivacaine administered to a given patient depended on the previous patient's response. Before surgery, the first patient received 20 mL of 0.2% ropivacaine for ACB and again for IPACK. If the block failed, the next subject received a 0.025% higher ropivacaine concentration; otherwise, the next subject received either a 0.025% smaller dose (probability of 0.11) or the same dose (probability of 0.89). The primary outcome was whether the block was successful. Block success was defined as the patient did not suffer significant pain and did not receive rescue analgesia within 6 h after surgery. MEC90 was estimated by isotonic regression, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by bootstrapping. Secondary outcomes were numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at postoperative 24 h and 48 h, postoperative morphine consumption, and time to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were compared between patients whose blocks succeeded with those which failed. RESULTS: Based on analysis of 52 patients, the MEC90 was 0.247% (95% CI 0.227-0.271%), MEC95 was 0.260% (95% CI 0.244-0.282%) and MEC99 was 0.272% (95% CI 0.260-0.291%). In contrast, four of nine trials in a recent systematic review reported ropivacaine concentrations below 0.247%. Patients whose blocks succeeded (n = 45) had significantly lower NRS pain scores, lower morphine consumption, and shorter hospitalization than patients whose blocks failed (n = 7). CONCLUSIONS: Our small trial suggests that 0.247% ropivacaine in 20 mL respectively can provide successful ACB + IPACK block in 90% of patients. However, given that many published trials have used lower concentrations, our findings should be verified in larger studies.
