RESUMO
Background Total knee replacement is often associated with significant postoperative pain. Although the use of a femoral nerve block is well-established, local infiltration analgesia has gained popularity in recent years. We compared single-shot local infiltration analgesia with a single-shot femoral nerve block for patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Methods A total of 194 patients were randomised to receive either local infiltration analgesia (150 ml bupivacaine 0.067% with adrenaline) or a femoral nerve block (20 ml 0.375% levobupivacaine). Both groups received spinal anaesthesia. The primary outcome measure was the total morphine consumption. Secondary outcome measures included: post-operative pain scores, rehabilitation goals, readiness for discharge, and physical, mental, and functional outcomes, including the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Results A total of 69 patients in the local infiltration analgesia group and 79 patients in the femoral nerve block group were analysed. Median total morphine consumption was significantly greater in the local infiltration analgesia group as compared to the femoral nerve block group (54.67 mg vs 45 mg, respectively, p=0.0388). The post-operative OKS at six weeks was slightly more improved for the femoral nerve block group than for local infiltration analgesia (12.5 vs 9 point median improvements for the femoral nerve block and local infiltration analgesia groups, respectively, p=0.0261). There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcome measures. Conclusion A single-shot femoral nerve block significantly reduces the opioid requirement for primary total knee arthroplasty but is otherwise comparable to single-shot local infiltration analgesia.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Previous work has demonstrated a survival improvement following the introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (the emergency laparotomy pathway quality improvement care (ELPQuiC) bundle). Implementation of this bundle increased the use of intra-operative goal directed fluid therapy and ICU admission, both evidence-based strategies recommended to improve kidney outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine if the observed mortality benefit could be explained by a difference in the incidence of AKI pre- and post-implementation of the protocol. METHOD: The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI in the pre- and post-ELPQuiC bundle patient population in four acute trusts in the United Kingdom. Secondary outcomes included the KDIGO stage specific incidence of AKI. Serum creatinine values were obtained retrospectively at baseline, in the post-operative period and the maximum recorded creatinine between day 1 and day 30 were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients pre-ELPQuiC bundle and 426 patients post-ELPQuiC bundle implementation were identified across the four centres. The overall AKI incidence was 18.4% in the pre-bundle group versus 19.8% in the post bundle group p = 0.653. No significant differences were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite this multi-centre cohort study demonstrating an overall survival benefit, implementation of the quality improvement care bundle did not affect the incidence of AKI.
