Is Local Infiltration Analgesia Superior to Peripheral Nerve Blockade for Pain Management After THA: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Local infiltration analgesia and peripheral nerve blocks are common methods for pain management in patients after THA but direct head-to-head, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not been performed. A network meta-analysis allows indirect comparison of individual treatments relative to a common comparator; in this case placebo (or no intervention), epidural analgesia, and intrathecal morphine, yielding an estimate of comparative efficacy. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked, when compared with a placebo, (1) does use of local infiltration analgesia reduce patient pain scores and opioid consumption, (2) does use of peripheral nerve blocks reduce patient pain scores and opioid consumption, and (3) is local infiltration analgesia favored over peripheral nerve blocks for postoperative pain management after THA? METHODS: We searched six databases, from inception through June 30, 2014, to identify RCTs comparing local infiltration analgesia or peripheral nerve block use in patients after THA. A total of 35 RCTs at low risk of bias based on the recommended Cochrane Collaboration risk assessment tool were included in the network meta-analysis (2296 patients). Primary outcomes for this review were patient pain scores at rest and cumulative opioid consumption, both assessed at 24 hours after THA. Because of substantial heterogeneity (variation of outcomes between studies) across included trials, a random effect model for meta-analysis was used to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI. The gray literature was searched with the same inclusion criteria as published trials. Only one unpublished trial (published abstract) fulfilled our criteria and was included in this review. All other studies included in this systematic review were full published articles. Bayesian network meta-analysis included all RCTs that compared local infiltration analgesia or peripheral nerve blocks with placebo (or no intervention), epidural analgesia, and intrathecal morphine. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, local infiltration analgesia reduced patient pain scores (WMD, -0.61; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.24; p = 0.001) and opioid consumption (WMD, -7.16 mg; 95% CI, -11.98 to -2.35; p = 0.004). Peripheral nerve blocks did not result in lower pain scores or reduced opioid consumption compared with placebo (WMD, -0.43; 95% CI, -0.99 to 0.12; p = 0.12 and WMD, -3.14 mg, 95% CI, -11.30 to 5.02; p = 0.45). However, network meta-analysis comparing local infiltration analgesia with peripheral nerve blocks through common comparators showed no differences between postoperative pain scores (WMD, -0.36; 95% CI, -1.06 to 0.31) and opioid consumption (WMD, -4.59 mg; 95% CI, -9.35 to 0.17), although rank-order analysis found local infiltration analgesia to be ranked first in more simulations than peripheral nerve blocks, suggesting that it may be more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Using the novel statistical network meta-analysis approach, we found no differences between local infiltration analgesia and peripheral nerve blocks in terms of analgesia or opioid consumption 24 hours after THA; there was a suggestion of a slight advantage to peripheral nerve blocks based on rank-order analysis, but the effect size in question is likely not large. Given the slight difference between interventions, clinicians may choose to focus on other factors such as cost and intervention-related complications when debating which analgesic treatment to use after THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

There Are No Differences in Short- to Mid-term Survivorship Among Total Hip-bearing Surface Options: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly being performed in patients with long life expectancies and active lifestyles. Newer implant bearing surfaces, with superior wear characteristics, often are used in this cohort with the goal of improving longevity of the prosthesis, but comparisons across the numerous available bearing surfaces are limited, so the surgeon and patient may have difficulty deciding which implants to use. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to answer the following question: Is there a short- to mid-term survivorship difference between common THA bearings used in patients younger than age 65 years? METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published after 2000 that reported survivorship of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene (CoPxl), or metal-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene (MoPxl) bearings. To qualify for our review, RCTs had to have a minimum 2-year followup and study patients were required to have an average age younger than 65 years. Direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were performed to combine direct and indirect evidence. RESULTS: Direct-comparison meta-analysis found no differences among the bearing surfaces in terms of the risk of revision; this approach demonstrated a risk ratio for revision of 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-2.23; p = 0.50) between CoC and CoPxl and a risk ratio for revision of 0.40 (95% CI, 0.06-2.63; p = 0.34) between CoC and MoPxl. Network meta-analysis (with post hoc modification) likewise found no differences in survivorship across the three implant types, demonstrating the following probabilities of most effective implant with 95% credible intervals (CrI): CoC = 64.6% (0%-100%); CoPxl = 24.9% (0%-100%); and MoPxl = 9.9% (0%-100%). The CrIs ranged from 0% to 100% for all three bearing surfaces. Direct-comparison meta-analysis allowed for pooling of five RCTs, including 779 THAs, whereas network meta-analysis (before post hoc analysis) enabled pooling of 18 RCTs, including 2599 THAs. CONCLUSIONS: Current published evidence does not support survivorship differences among commonly used bearing surfaces in patients younger than age 65 years undergoing THA at short- to mid-term followup. Long-term RCT data will be needed to determine if a survivorship benefit is realized in younger, more active patients over time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Intraoperative fracture during aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty.

Bone encountered during revision knee arthroplasty is compromised and predisposed to fracture. This study reports the rate, location, timing, treatment, and outcome of intraoperative fractures occurring during revision knee arthroplasty. Between 1997 and 2011, 2836 aseptic revisions were performed. Ninety-seven fractures were identified in 89 patients (3%). Fifty occurred in femora, 42 in tibiae, and 5 in patellae. Forty-six occurred during exposure, 21 during bony preparation, 17 during trialing, and 13 during final component placement. Treatment included fixation (n = 43), observation (n = 21), component build-up (n = 17), bone grafting (n = 6), and a combination (n = 3). Ninety-four percent of fractures united. Fifteen patients required a re-revision (17%), of which infection was the leading cause (n = 5).