Percutaneous vertebroplasty in the management of vertebral osteoporotic fractures. Short-term, mid-term and long-term follow-up of 285 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the short-term, mid-term and long-term follow-up of 285 patients who had undergone percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (VCF) in our department from 2003 to 2006, and, particularly, to analyse our data on the safety and the usefulness of PVP for durable pain reduction, mobility improvement and the need for analgesic drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Follow-up analysis was made through a questionnaire completed by the patients before and after PVP (1 week, 1 year and 3 years). The results are reported by subdivision of patients into groups (by gender, age and number of treated vertebrae), with special reference to pain management, drug administration and quality of life. RESULTS: All patients (285) were followed up for 1 week, 186 for 12 months, and 68 patients were followed up for 3 years. One week after PVP all patients reported normal ambulation (with or without pain), and more than 95% were able to perform activities of daily living (ADL) either without pain or with mild pain. There was no difference in pain relief between the genders after 1 week's follow up, but after 3 years better analgesia results were observed in women. There was no statistically significant difference in the visual analogue scale (VAS) values before PVP between age groups (P = 0.7) and gender (P = 0.4); Patients younger than 75 years had better outcomes than did older ones (>75 years) at 1 week and 1 year follow up. Patients also reported significant reduction in drug therapy for pain. CONCLUSIONS: PVP is a safe and useful procedure for the treatment of vertebral osteoporotic fractures. It produces enduring pain reduction, improves patients' mobility and decreases the need for analgesic drugs.

Efficacy of continuous femoral nerve block with stimulating catheters versus nonstimulating catheters for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This prospective randomized controlled trial investigated the clinical efficacy of stimulating catheters for continuous femoral nerve block in patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. METHODS: Seventy patients were randomized to either a stimulating catheter (SC, n = 35) or a nonstimulating catheter (NSC, n = 35) for femoral nerve block using 25 mL ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL and clonidine 50 microg injected through the catheter. A single-injection sciatic block was also given to ensure surgical anesthesia. The time to loss of sensation to cold and pinprick of the femoral nerve was registered as the onset time. Data were registered intra- and postoperatively regarding pain scores, adverse effects, and need for supplemental anesthesia and analgesia other than a continuous postoperative infusion of ropivacaine 2 mg/mL through the continuous femoral nerve catheter set at 7 mL/h. RESULTS: Onset time was faster in the SC group (SC: 6.4 +/- 2.5, NSC: 8.3 +/- 2.9 min, P = .006). Visual analog scale pain scores were similar in both groups. The number of patient-controlled regional analgesia boluses (SC: 14.6 +/- 12.6, NSC: 23.2 +/- 13.6 mg ropivacaine 2 mg/mL, P = .008) as well as intravenous rescue ketorolac (SC: 34.3 +/- 35.7, NSC: 54 +/- 39.7 mg, P = .033) administered were higher in the NSC group. CONCLUSION: Although the use of a stimulating catheter was associated with faster onset time for the femoral nerve block and lower additional analgesics postoperatively, the clinical superiority (analgesia; lateral femoral cutaneous, and obturator nerve block) of stimulating catheters was not evident in this clinical setting.

Continuous femoral nerve block provides superior analgesia compared with continuous intra-articular and wound infusion after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This prospective, randomized, clinical trial compared pain intensity and analgesic drug consumption after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with patellar tendon under femoral-sciatic nerve block anesthesia in patients who received either a continuous femoral nerve block (CFNB) or continuous local anesthetic wound and intra-articular infusions. METHODS: Fifty patients were randomized to CFNB (n = 25) or an ON-Q device (I-Flow Corp, Lake Forest, Calif) (n = 25). All patients received sciatic nerve block (25 mL of ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL and clonidine 30 microg). The first group received a CFNB (2 mg/mL of ropivacaine at 7 mL/hr), and the second group received a single-shot femoral nerve block (both using 25 mL of ropivacaine 7.5 mg/mL and clonidine 30 microg). At the end of the intervention, an ON-Q device was positioned on the ON-Q patients to continuously infuse the patellar tendon wound and intra-articular cavity with ropivacaine 2 mg/mL at 2 mL/hr for each catheter. Data regarding demographic, hemodynamic, pain scores, adverse effects, and need for supplemental analgesia were registered in a 36-hr follow-up period. RESULTS: The CFNB group reported lower visual analog scale values than the ON-Q group: at rest at 12 hrs (2.4 [SD, 2.2] vs 5.4 [SD, 3.1]; P < 0.001) and on movement at 12 (3.1 [SD, 2.5] vs 6.3 [SD, 2.9]; P < 0.001) and 24 hrs (2.7 [SD, 1.9] vs 4.6 [SD, 2.6]; P = 0.01) after surgery. The number of morphine and ketorolac boluses was lower in the CNFB group (morphine: 3.2 [SD, 2.2] vs 6.2 [SD, 2.5]; P < 0.001; ketorolac: 1.1 [SD, 1.0] vs 2.4 [SD, 0.9]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Continuous femoral nerve block provides better analgesia than the continuous patellar tendon wound and intra-articular infusions after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon.