A clinical pathway for total shoulder arthroplasty-a pilot study

Arthroscopic assisted brachial plexus catheter placement: an alternative to the percutaneous interscalene approach

Background

Brachial plexus catheter placement at the interscalene level is beneficial for shoulder analgesia but presents logistical challenges due to the superficial nature of the plexus at this level, increased patient movement in the neck, and therefore higher likelihood for catheter dislodgement.

Methods

Patients requiring shoulder arthroscopy and suprascapular nerve decompression were identified. Under arthroscopic guidance, a catheter was placed percutaneously into the scalene medius muscle next to the suprascapular nerve and the upper trunk of the brachial plexus. Patients were followed postoperatively for perioperative analgesic outcomes.

Results

Ten patients were identified and consented for intraoperative brachial plexus catheter placement. Patient demographics and surgical details were determined. Postoperative adjunctive pain management and pain scores were variable. Two patients required catheter replacement using ultrasound guidance in the perioperative anesthesia care unit due to poorly controlled pain. There were no incidents of catheter failure due to dislodgement.

Discussion

This study presents the first description of arthroscopically-assisted brachial plexus catheter placement. This method may present an alternative to traditional ultrasound guided interscalene catheter placement. Further study is needed to determine if analgesic outcomes, block success, and dislodgement rates are improved with this method.

Association between same-day discharge shoulder arthroplasty and risk of adverse events in patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥3: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Same-day discharge for shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is well-supported in the literature; however, most studies have focused on healthier patients. Indications for same-day discharge SA have expanded to include patients with more comorbidities, but safety of same-day discharge in this population remains unknown. We sought to compare outcomes following same-day discharge vs. inpatient SA in a cohort of patients considered higher risk for adverse events, defined as an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of ≥3.

METHODS

Data from Kaiser Permanente's SA registry were utilized to conduct a retrospective cohort study. All patients with an ASA classification of ≥3 who underwent primary elective anatomic or reverse SA in a hospital from 2018 to 2020 were included. The exposure of interest was in-hospital length of stay: same-day discharge vs. ≥1-night hospital inpatient stay. The likelihood of 90-day post-discharge events, including emergency department (ED) visit, readmission, cardiac complication, venous thromboembolism, and mortality, was evaluated using propensity score-weighted logistic regression with noninferiority testing using a margin of 1.10.

RESULTS

The cohort included a total of 1814 SA patients, of whom 1005 (55.4%) had same-day discharge. In propensity score-weighted models, same-day discharge was not inferior to an inpatient stay SA regarding 90-day readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 0.64, one-sided 95% upper bound [UB] = 0.89) and overall complications (OR = 0.67, 95% UB = 1.00). We lacked evidence in support of noninferiority for 90-day ED visit (OR = 0.96, 95% UB = 1.18), cardiac event (OR = 0.68, 95% UB = 1.11), or venous thromboembolism (OR = 0.91, 95% UB = 2.15). Infections, revisions for instability, and mortality were too rare to evaluate using regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of over 1800 patients with an ASA of ≥3, we found same-day discharge SA did not increase the likelihood of ED visits, readmissions, or complications compared with an inpatient stay, and same-day discharge was not inferior to an inpatient stay with regard to readmissions and overall complications. These findings suggest that it is possible to expand indications for same-day discharge SA in the hospital setting.

Does the use of periarticular anesthetic cocktail provide adequate pain control following shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Interscalene nerve block and liposomal bupivacaine have been found to provide adequate pain control following shoulder arthroplasty. We hypothesized that local infiltration of a periarticular cocktail would provide equivalent pain control compared to interscalene nerve block and liposomal bupivacaine.

METHODS

Eighty-seven patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty were treated with local infiltration of a periarticular cocktail (200 mg of 0.5% ropivacaine, 1 mg epinephrine, and 30 mg ketorolac), local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine, or preoperative interscalene nerve block. The outcomes of the study were postoperative visual analog scale scores, opioid consumption, length of stay, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients receiving local infiltration of a periarticular cocktail, 26 receiving liposomal bupivacaine, and 31 receiving interscalene nerve block were included in the study. Patients who received local infiltration of a periarticular cocktail had a significantly lower mean visual analog scale when compared to interscalene nerve block and liposomal bupivacaine on postoperative day 0 (2.5 versus 4.0 versus 4.8, P = 0.001 and P < 0.001). Pain scores between postoperative day 0-3 were lower in patients who received local infiltration of a periarticular cocktail, but not significantly. Patients who received local infiltration of a periarticular cocktail required significantly less opioids than the interscalene nerve block group on postoperative day 0 (P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

A decrease in early postoperative pain and opioid consumption was found with local infiltration of a periarticular cocktail when compared with interscalene nerve block and liposomal bupivacaine after shoulder arthroplasty.Level of evidence: Level II.

A Comprehensive Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Rotator Cuff Surgery Reduces Pain, Opioid Use, and Side Effects

BACKGROUND

Patients often have moderate to severe pain after rotator cuff surgery, despite receiving analgesics and nerve blocks. There are many suggested ways to improve pain after rotator cuff surgery, but the effects of adopting a pathway that includes formal patient education, a long-acting nerve block, and extensive multimodal analgesia are unclear.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does adoption of a clinical pathway incorporating patient education, a long-acting nerve block, and preemptive multimodal analgesia reduce the worst pain during the first 48 hours after surgery compared with current standard institutional practices? (2) Does adoption of the pathway reduce opioid use? (3) Does adoption of the pathway reduce side effects and improve patient-oriented outcomes?

METHODS

From September 2018 to January 2020, 281 patients scheduled for arthroscopic ambulatory rotator cuff surgery were identified for this paired sequential prospective cohort study. Among patients in the control group, 177 were identified, 33% (58) were not eligible, for 11% (20) staff was not available, 56% (99) were approached, 16% (29) declined, 40% (70) enrolled, and 40% (70) were analyzed (2% [4] lost to follow-up for secondary outcomes after postoperative day 2). For patients in the pathway cohort, 104 were identified, 17% (18) were not eligible, for 11% (11) staff was not available, 72% (75) were approached, 5% (5) declined, 67% (70) enrolled, and 67% (70) were analyzed (3% [3] lost to follow-up for secondary outcomes after postoperative day 2). No patients were lost to follow-up for primary outcome; for secondary outcomes, four were lost in the control group and three in the pathway group after postoperative day 2 (p = 0.70). The initial 70 patients enrolled received routine care (control group), and in a subsequent cohort, 70 patients received care guided by a pathway (pathway group). Of the 205 eligible patients, 68% (140) were included in the analysis. This was not a study comparing two tightly defined protocols but rather a study to determine whether adoption of a pathway would alter patient outcomes. For this reason, we used a pragmatic (real-world) study design that did not specify how control patients would be treated, and it did not require that all pathway patients receive all components of the pathway. We developed the pathway in coordination with a group of surgeons and anesthesiologists who agreed to apply the pathway as much as was viewed practical for each individual patient. Patients in both groups received a brachial plexus nerve block with sedation. Major differences between the pathway and control groups were: detailed patient education regarding reasonable pain expectations with a goal of reducing opioid use (no formal educational presentation was given to the control), a long-acting nerve block using bupivacaine with dexamethasone (control patients often received shorter-acting local anesthetic without perineural dexamethasone), and preemptive multimodal analgesia including intraoperative ketamine, postoperative acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and gabapentin at bedtime, with opioids as needed (control patients received postoperative opioids but most did not get postoperative NSAIDS and no controls received gabapentin or separate prescriptions for acetaminophen). The primary outcome was the numerical rating scale (NRS) worst pain with movement 0 to 48 hours after block placement. The NRS pain score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain possible). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) [12] for NRS that was used for calculation of the study sample size was 1.3 [18], although some authors suggest 1 [13] or 2 [5] are appropriate; if we had used an MCID of 2, the sample size would have been smaller. Secondary outcomes included NRS pain scores at rest, daily opioid use (postoperative day 1, 2, 7, 14), block duration, patient-oriented pain questions (postoperative day 1, 2, 7, 14), and patient and physician adherence to pathway.

RESULTS

On postoperative day 1, pathway patients had lower worst pain with movement (3.3 ± 3.1) compared with control patients (5.6 ± 3.0, mean difference -2.7 [95% CI -3.7 to -1.7]; p < 0.001); lower scores were also seen for pain at rest (1.9 ± 2.3 versus 4.0 ± 2.9, mean difference -2.0 [95% CI -2.8 to -1.3]; p < 0.001). Cumulative postoperative opioid use (0-48 hours) was reduced (pathway oral morphine equivalent use was 23 ± 28 mg versus 44 ± 35 mg, mean difference 21 [95% CI 10 to 32]; p < 0.01). The greatest difference in opioid use was in the first 24 hours after surgery (pathway 7 ± 12 mg versus control 21 ± 21 mg, mean difference -14 [95% CI -19 to -10]; p < 0.01). On postoperative day 1, pathway patients had less interference with staying asleep compared with control patients (0.5 ± 1.6 versus 2.6 ± 3.3, mean difference -2.2 [95% CI -3.3 to -1.1]; p < 0.001); lower scores were also seen for interference with activities (0.9 ± 2.3 versus 1.9 ± 2.9, mean difference -1.1 [95% CI -2 to -0.1]; p = 0.03). Satisfaction with pain treatment on postoperative day 1 was higher among pathway patients compared with control patients (9.2 ± 1.7 versus 8.2 ± 2.5, mean difference 1.0 [95% CI 0.3 to 1.8]; p < 0.001). On postoperative day 2, pathway patients had lower nausea scores compared with control patients (0.3 ± 1.1 versus 1 ± 2.1, mean difference -0.7 [95% CI -1.2 to -0.1]; p = 0.02); lower scores were also seen for drowsiness on postoperative day 1 (1.7 ± 2.7 versus 2.6 ± 2.6, mean difference -0.9 [95% CI - 1.7 to -0.1]; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Adoption of the pathway was associated with improvement in the primary outcome (pain with movement) that exceeded the MCID. Patients in the pathway group had improved patient-oriented outcomes and fewer side effects. This pathway uses multiple analgesic drugs, which may pose risks to elderly patients, in particular. Therefore, in evaluating whether to use this pathway, clinicians should weigh the effect sizes against the potential risks that may emerge with large scale use, consider the difficulties involved in adapting a pathway to local practice so that pathway will persist, and recognize that this study only enrolled patients among surgeons and the anesthesiologists that advocated for the pathway; results may have been different with less enthusiastic clinicians. This pathway, based on a long-lasting nerve block, multimodal analgesia, and patient education can be considered for adoption.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

The Feasibility of Outpatient Shoulder Arthroplasty: Risk Stratification and Predictive Probability Modeling

Whether shoulder arthroplasty can be performed on an outpatient basis depends on appropriate patient selection. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for adverse events (AEs) following shoulder arthroplasty and to generate predictive models to improve patient selection. This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data using a single institution shoulder arthroplasty registry as well as the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database, including subjects undergoing hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and reverse TSA. Predicted probability of suitability for same-day discharge was calculated from multivariable logistic models for different patient subgroups based on age, comorbidities, and Charlson/Deyo Index scores. A total of 2314 shoulders (2079 subjects) in the institutional registry met inclusion criteria for this study. Younger age, higher body mass index (BMI), male sex, and prior steroid injection were all significantly associated with suitability for discharge, whereas preoperative narcotic use, comorbidities (heart disease and anemia/other blood disease), and Charlson/Deyo Index score of 2 were associated with AEs that might prevent same-day discharge. Compared with TSA, reverse TSA was associated with less suitability for discharge (P=.01). On querying the ACS-NSQIP database, 15,254 patients were identified. Female sex, BMI less than 35 kg/m², American Society of Anesthesiologists class III/IV, preoperative anemia, functional dependence, low pre-operative albumin, and hemiarthroplasty were associated with unsuitability for discharge. Males 55 to 59 years old with no comorbidities nor history of narcotic use formed the lowest risk subgroup. Transfusion is the primary driver of AEs. Strategies to avoid this complication should be explored. Risk stratification will improve the ability to identify patients who can safely undergo outpatient shoulder arthroplasty. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(2):e215-e222.].

A 3-arm randomized clinical trial comparing interscalene blockade techniques with local infiltration analgesia for total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The ideal analgesic modality for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) remains controversial. We hypothesized that a multimodal analgesic pathway incorporating continuous interscalene blockade (ISB) provides better analgesic efficacy than both single-injection ISB and local infiltration analgesia.

METHODS

This single-center, parallel, unblinded, randomized clinical trial evaluated 129 adults undergoing primary TSA. Patients were allocated to single-injection ISB, continuous ISB, or local infiltration analgesia. The primary outcome was the Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score (range, 0 [best] to 28 [worst]) on postoperative day 1. Additional outcomes included pain scores, opioid consumption, quality of life, and postoperative complications in the first 24 hours, at 3 months, and at 1 year.

RESULTS

We analyzed 125 patients (42 with single-injection ISB, 41 with continuous ISB, and 42 with local infiltration analgesia). The Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score was significantly improved in the continuous group (median [25th percentile, 75th percentile], 0 [0, 2]) compared with the single-injection group (2 [1, 4]; P = .002) and local infiltration analgesia group (3 [2, 4]; P < .001). Pain scores were significantly lower in the continuous group compared with the local infiltration analgesia group (P < .001 for all time points) and after 12 hours from ward arrival compared with the single-injection group (median [25th percentile, 75th percentile], 1.0 [0.0, 2.8] vs. 2.5 [0.0, 4.0]; P = .016). After postanesthesia recovery discharge, opioid consumption (oral morphine equivalents) was significantly lower in the continuous group (median [25th percentile, 75th percentile], 7.5 mg [0.0, 25.0 mg]) than in the local infiltration analgesia group (30 mg [15.0, 52.5 mg]; P < .001) and single-injection group (17.6 mg [7.5, 45.5 mg]; P = .010). No differences were found across groups for complications, 3-month outcomes, and 1-year outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Continuous ISB provides superior analgesia compared with single-injection ISB and local infiltration analgesia in the first 24 hours after TSA.

What Pain Levels Do TSA Patients Experience When Given a Long-acting Nerve Block and Multimodal Analgesia?

BACKGROUND

The pain experience for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) patients in the first 2 weeks after surgery has not been well described. Many approaches to pain management have been used, with none emerging as clearly superior; it is important that any approach minimizes postoperative opioid use.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) With a long-acting nerve block and comprehensive multimodal analgesia, what are the pain levels after TSA from day of surgery until postoperative day (POD) 14? (2) How many opioids do TSA patients take from the day of surgery until POD 14? (3) What are the PainOUT responses at POD 1 and POD 14, focusing on side effects from opioids usage?

METHODS

From January 27, 2017 to December 6, 2017, 154 TSA patients were identified as potentially eligible for this prospective, institutional review board-approved observational study. Of those, 46 patients (30%) were excluded (either because they were deemed not appropriate for the study, research staff were not available, patients were not eligible, or they declined to participate), and another six (4%) had incomplete followup data and could not be studied, leaving 102 patients (66%) for analysis here. Median preoperative pain with movement was 7 (interquartile range [IQR], 5-9) and 13 of 102 patients used preoperative opioids. All patients received a single-injection bupivacaine interscalene block with adjuvant clonidine, dexamethasone, and buprenorphine. Multimodal analgesia included acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and opioids. The primary outcome was the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score with movement on POD 14. The NRS pain score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain possible). Secondary outcomes included NRS pain scores at rest and with movement (day of surgery, and PODs 1, 3, 7 and 14), daily analgesic use from day of surgery to POD 14 (both oral and intravenous), Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (which assesses 12 symptoms ranging from 0 to 4, with 4 being the most distressing; the composite score is the mean of the 12 symptom-specific scores) on POD 1, and the PainOut questionnaire on POD 1 and POD 14. The PainOut questionnaire includes questions rating nausea, drowsiness, itching from 0 (none) to 10 (severe), as well as rating difficulty staying asleep from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes).

RESULTS

The median NRS pain scores with movement were 2 (IQR, 0-5) on POD 1, 5 (IQR, 3-6) on POD 3, and the pain score was 3 (IQR, 1-5) on POD 14. Median total opioid use (converted to oral morphine equivalents) was 16 mg (4-50 mg) for the first 24 hours, 30 mg (8-63 mg) for the third, and 0 mg (0-20 mg) by the eighth 24-hour period, while the most frequent number of activations of the intravenous patient-controlled analgesia device was 0. Median PainOut scores on POD 1 and POD 14 for sleep interference, nausea, drowsiness and itching were 0, and the median composite Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale score on day 1 was 0.3 (IQR, 0.1-0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians using this protocol, which combines a long-acting, single-injection nerve block with multimodal analgesia, can inform TSA patients that their postoperative pain will likely be less than their preoperative pain, and that on average they will stop using opioids after 7 days. Future research could investigate what the individual components of this protocol contribute. Larger cohort studies or registries would document the incidence of rare complications. Randomized controlled trials could directly compare analgesic effectiveness and cost-benefits for this protocol versus alternative strategies, such as perineural catheters or liposomal bupivacaine. Perhaps most importantly, future studies could seek ways to further reduce peak pain and opioid usage on POD 2 and POD 3.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Enhanced Recovery After Shoulder Arthroplasty

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols depend on multidisciplinary care and should be peer-reviewed and data-driven. ERAS has reduced hospital length of stay and complications, simultaneously improving patient outcomes. ERAS protocol after shoulder arthroplasty features multidisciplinary collaboration among different perioperative services and multimodal analgesia with a focus on regional anesthesia. Despite success, adoption is not universal because ERAS protocols are resource intensive. They require clinicians invested in the success of these programs and patients who can take charge of their own health. Future protocols need to include quality of life and functional outcome measures to gauge success from the patient perspective.

Enhanced recovery after surgery for primary hip and knee arthroplasty: a review of the evidence

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols produce significant clinical and economic benefits in a range of surgical subspecialties. There is a long tradition of applying clinical pathways to the perioperative care of joint arthroplasty patients. Enhanced recovery after surgery represents the next step in the evolution of standardized care. To date, reports of full ERAS pathways for hip or knee arthroplasty are lacking. In this narrative review, we present the evidence base that can be usefully applied to constructing ERAS pathways for hip or knee arthroplasty. The history and rationale for applying ERAS to joint arthroplasty are explained. Evidence demonstrates improved outcomes after joint arthroplasty when a standardized approach to care is implemented. The efficacy of individual ERAS components in hip or knee replacement is considered, including preoperative education, intraoperative anaesthetic techniques, postoperative analgesia, and early mobilization after joint arthroplasty. Interventions lacking high-quality evidence are identified, together with recommendations for future research. Based on currently available evidence, we present a model ERAS pathway that can be applied to perioperative care of patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty.

Multimodal analgesia decreases opioid consumption after shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Studies on perioperative pain control in shoulder arthroplasty focus on regional anesthesia, with little research on other approaches. Perioperative multimodal analgesia regimens decrease opioid intake and opioid-related side effects in lower-extremity arthroplasty. In this study we compare pain scores, opioid consumption, length of stay, and readmission rates in postoperative shoulder arthroplasty patients treated with a standard or multimodal analgesia regimen.

METHODS

A prospective cohort analysis was performed at a single institution. Patients undergoing elective shoulder arthroplasty were treated with either a standard opioid-based regimen or a multimodal analgesia regimen perioperatively. Outcome measures included inpatient pain scores, opioid use, length of stay, and 30- and 90-day emergency department visits and readmission rates.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were included in each cohort. Patients treated with the multimodal analgesia regimen had lower postoperative day 0 pain scores (mean, 1.5 vs 2.2; P = .027). Opioid use in the multimodal cohort was lower on all days: 47% lower on postoperative day 0, 37% on day 1, and 44% on day 2 (all P < .01). The length of inpatient stay was significantly shorter for multimodal patients than for patients treated with the standard regimen (1.44 days vs 1.91 days, P < .01). There was no difference in the rate of 30- or 90-day emergency department visits or readmission.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty have decreased postoperative pain and opioid consumption and shorter hospital stays when given a multimodal analgesia regimen. There is no increase in short-term complications or unplanned readmissions, indicating that this is a safe and effective means to control postoperative pain.

Pain Management Strategies in Shoulder Arthroplasty

Pain control in total shoulder arthroplasty demands a multidisciplinary approach with collaboration between patients, surgeon, and anesthetist. A multimodal approach with preemptive medication, regional blockade, local anesthetics, and a combination of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, tramadol, and gabapentinoids postoperatively leads to pain control and patient satisfaction. Assessment of patients' expectations constitutes a vital aspect of the preoperative patient evaluation. Educating and psychologically preparing patients reduces postoperative pain. Patients with anxiety and depression, preoperative narcotic use, and medical comorbidities are at an increased risk for suboptimal pain control. Minimizing narcotic use decreases opioid-related adverse effects and facilitates productive rehabilitation efforts.

Comparative outcomes of outpatient and inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of the Medicare dataset

AIMS

The aim of the present study was to compare the 30- and 90-day re-admission rates and complication rates of outpatient and inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The United States Medicare Standard Analytical Files database was questioned to identify patients who had undergone outpatient or inpatient TSA between 2005 and 2012. Patient characteristics were compared between the two groups using chi-squared analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to control for differences in baseline patient characteristics and to compare the two groups in terms of post-operative complications within 90 days and re-admission within 30 days and 90 days.

RESULTS

A total of 123 347 Medicare subscribers underwent TSA between 2005 and 2012; 3493 (2.8%) had the procedure performed as an outpatient. A significantly greater proportion of patients who underwent TSA as inpatients were women, had a history of smoking, and had a greater incidence of medical comorbidity including diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic kidney disease (p < 0.05 for all). Re-admission rates were significantly higher for inpatients at both 30 days (0.83% versus 0.60%, p = 0.016, odds ratio 1.8) and 90 days (2.87% versus 2.04%, p < 0.001, odds ratio 1.8). Complications, including thromboembolic events (p < 0.001) and surgical site infection (p = 0.002), were significantly higher in inpatients.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent TSA on an outpatient basis were overall younger and healthier than those who had inpatient surgery, which suggests that patient selection was taking place. After controlling for age, gender, and medical conditions, patients who underwent TSA as outpatients had lower rates of 30- and 90-day re-admission and a lower rate of complications than inpatients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:934-8.

Liposomal bupivacaine versus interscalene nerve block for pain control after shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial

HYPOTHESIS

Our hypothesis was that in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty, a prospective randomized trial would find no significant differences in average daily pain scores of those treated with interscalene nerve block (INB) vs. local liposomal bupivacaine (LB).

METHODS

Sixty patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty were assessed for eligibility. Study arms included either intraoperative local infiltration of LB (20 mL bupivacaine/20 mL saline) or preoperative INB, with a primary outcome of postoperative average daily visual analog scale scores for 4 days. Secondary outcomes assessed included opioid consumption, length of stay, and complications. Randomization was by a computerized algorithm. Only the observer was blinded to the intervention.

RESULTS

Three patients were excluded, all before randomization. A total of 57 patients were analyzed. Outcomes showed a significant increase in pain in the LB group between 0 and 8 hours postoperatively (mean [standard deviation] 5.3 [2.2] vs. 2.5 [3.0]; P = .001). A significant increase in intravenous morphine equivalents was found in the INB group at 13 to 16 hours (mean [standard deviation] 1.2 [0.9] vs. 0.6 [0.7]; P = .01). No significant differences were found in any variable after postoperative day 0 between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

An increase in early postoperative pain on the day of surgery was found with LB, whereas the INB group required more narcotics at the end of the day. After the day of surgery, there were no significant differences found in any variables. These findings suggest that LB provides similar overall pain relief as INB, with no increase in complications or length of stay and a decrease in narcotic requirements on the day of surgery.

Buprenorphine, Clonidine, Dexamethasone, and Ropivacaine for Interscalene Nerve Blockade: A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Ropivacaine Dose-Response Study

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated interscalene block for shoulder arthroplasty with various ropivacaine concentrations in the presence of clonidine, dexamethasone, and buprenorphine. The goal was prolonged analgesia with minimal motor blockade.

DESIGN

Prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

University-affiliated orthopedic hospital.

METHODS

Patients (20/group) received acetaminophen, ketorolac, pregabalin, opioids, and "Control"; interscalene block, 0.375% ropivacaine, intravenous additives (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone); "High Dose"; 0.375% ropivacaine, perineural additives; "Medium Dose"; 0.2% ropivacaine, perineural additives; and "Low Dose"; 0.1% ropivacaine, perineural additives.

RESULTS

Pain with movement at 24 hours was 4.9 ± 2.5 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) (Control), 4.5 ± 3.0 (High Dose), 3.4 ± 1.8 (Medium Dose), 4.2 ± 2.4 (Low Dose). The difference between Medium Dose and Control was -1.5 (95% CI: -2.9, -0.1) (P = 0.040). Median time until need for opioids was 16.1 hours (Control) vs 23.7 hours (High Dose); hazard ratio 0.37 [95% CI: 0.17, 0.79]. High Dose had less pain with movement the morning after surgery, vs Control; 2.9 ± 2.5 vs 4.9 ± 2.7; P = 0.027. Pain with movement in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit was higher in Low Dose, vs Control; 0.9 ± 1.4 vs 0 ± 0, P = 0.009. Low Dose had superior hand strength in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (mean ± SD of pre-operative strength: 44.0 ± 20.3%) compared to Control (27.5 ± 24.5%) (P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

For maximum pain reduction, combining perineural additives with ropivacaine 0.375% or 0.2% is suggested. To minimize motor blockade, perineural additives can be combined with ropivacaine, 0.1%.