Efficacy of Hematoma Block After Intramedullary Rod Fixation of Femoral Shaft Fractures: A Prospective, Double-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of an intraoperative, postfixation fracture hematoma block on postoperative pain control and opioid consumption in patients with acute femoral shaft fractures. DESIGN: Prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic Level I Trauma Center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-two consecutive patients with isolated femoral shaft fractures (OTA/AO 32) underwent intramedullary rod fixation. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive an intraoperative, postfixation fracture hematoma injection containing 20 mL of normal saline or 0.5% ropivacaine in addition to a standardized multimodal pain regimen that included opioids. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and opioid consumption. RESULTS: The treatment group demonstrated significantly lower VAS pain scores than the control group in the first 24-hour postoperative period (5.0 vs. 6.7, P = 0.004), 0-8 hours (5.4 vs. 7.0, P = 0.013), 8-16 hours (4.9 vs. 6.6, P = 0.018), and 16-24 hours (4.7 vs. 6.6, P = 0.010), postoperatively. In addition, the opioid consumption (morphine milligram equivalents) was significantly lower in the treatment group compared with the control group over the first 24-hour postoperative period (43.6 vs. 65.9, P = 0.008). No adverse effects were observed secondary to the saline or ropivacaine infiltration. CONCLUSIONS: Infiltrating the fracture hematoma with ropivacaine in adult femoral shaft fractures reduced postoperative pain and opioid consumption compared with saline control. This intervention presents a useful adjunct to multimodal analgesia to improve postoperative care in orthopaedic trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Similar failure rate in immediate post-operative weight bearing versus protected weight bearing following meniscal repair on peripheral, vertical meniscal tears.

PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS: Post-operative weight bearing after meniscal repair is a point of debate among physicians. This study sought to evaluate whether patients adhering to an immediate WBAT rehabilitation programme have a higher failure rate compared to those adhering to a more traditional, protected, NWB status following meniscal repair. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in failure between the two groups. METHODS: A retrospective review of meniscal repair patients greater than 5 years from surgery was performed for patients receiving meniscal repair treatment. Patients were categorized by post-surgical weight-bearing status, either NWB or WBAT, and then analysed for failure of repair. Failure was defined as re-operation on the torn meniscus. The study controlled for variables including age at surgery, sex, height, weight, and BMI, classification of tear type, acuity of the tear, repair location (medial or lateral), repair location within the meniscus, repair technique, and concomitant procedures. RESULTS: Re-operations were performed in 61 of 157 patients [38.9%]. There was no difference between weight-bearing groups for failure of meniscus repair (n.s.). The tears were acute vertical tears located in the posterior horn and body. For the 61 patients with re-operation, the average time to re-operation was 2.2 years with 10 [16%] > 5 years from surgery, 17 [28%] 2-5 years from surgery, and 34 [56%] < 2 years from surgery. In isolated meniscal repair patients (n = 62), there was no difference between weight-bearing groups for rate of re-operation (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Weight bearing as tolerated after meniscal repair for peripheral, vertical tears does not result in a higher failure rate than traditional, non-weight bearing over a five-year follow-up period. The clinical relevance is that, based on these data, it may be appropriate to allow weight bearing as tolerated following meniscal repair of peripheral, vertical tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, Level III.