No Clinical Difference Comparing General, Regional, and Combination Anesthesia in Hip Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Cohort-Study Regarding Perioperative Pain Management and Patient Satisfaction

Is a Failed Spinal Attempt Associated With a Worse Clinical Course Following Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Spinal anesthesia (SA) is the preferred anesthesia modality for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, studies establishing SA as preferential may be subject to selection bias given that general anesthesia (GA) is often selectively utilized on more difficult, higher-risk operations. The optimal comparison group, therefore, is the patient converted to GA due to a failed attempt at SA. The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors and outcomes following failed SA with conversion to GA during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

A consecutive cohort of 4,483 patients who underwent primary TJA at our institution was identified (2,004 THA and 2,479 TKA). Of these patients, 3,307 underwent GA (73.8%), 1,056 underwent SA (23.3%), and 130 patients failed SA with conversion to GA (2.90%). Primary outcomes included rescue analgesia requirement in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), time to ambulation, pain scores in the PACU, estimated blood loss, and 90-day complications.

RESULTS

Risk factors for SA failure included older age and a higher comorbidity burden. Failure of SA was associated with increased estimated blood loss, rescue intravenous opioid use, and time to ambulation when compared to the successful SA group in both THA and TKA patients (P < .001). The anesthesia modality was not associated with significant differences in PACU pain scores. The 90-day complication rate was similar between the failed SA and GA groups. There was a higher incidence of postoperative pain prompting unplanned visits and thromboembolism when comparing failed SA to successful SA in both THA and TKA patients (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, patients who had failed SA demonstrated inferior outcomes to patients receiving successful SA and similar outcomes to patients receiving GA who did not have an SA attempt. This emphasizes the importance of success in the initial attempt at SA for optimizing outcomes following TJA.

Are All Patients Going Home after Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Temporal Analysis of Discharge Trends and Predictors of Nonhome Discharge (2011-2020)

Value-based orthopaedic surgery and reimbursement changes for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are potential factors shaping arthroplasty practice nationwide. This study aimed to evaluate (1) trends in discharge disposition (home vs nonhome discharge), (2) episode-of-care outcomes for home and nonhome discharge cohorts, and (3) predictors of nonhome discharge among patients undergoing TKA from 2011 to 2020. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was reviewed for all primary TKAs from 2011 to 2020. A total of 462,858 patients were identified and grouped into home discharge (n = 378,771) and nonhome discharge (n = 84,087) cohorts. The primary outcome was the annual rate of home/nonhome discharges. Secondary outcomes included trends in health care utilization parameters, readmissions, and complications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate factors associated with nonhome discharge. Overall, 82% were discharged home, and 18% were discharged to a nonhome facility. Home discharge rates increased from 65.5% in 2011 to 94% in 2020. Nonhome discharge rates decreased from 34.5% in 2011 to 6% in 2020. Thirty-day readmissions decreased from 3.2 to 2.4% for the home discharge cohort but increased from 5.6 to 6.1% for the nonhome discharge cohort. Female sex, Asian or Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class > II, Charlson comorbidity index scores > 0, smoking, dependent functional status, and age > 60 years were associated with higher odds of nonhome discharge. Over the last decade, there has been a major shift to home discharge after TKA. Future work is needed to further assess if perioperative interventions may have a positive effect in decreasing adverse outcomes in nonhome discharge patients.

Improved outcomes for spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a retrospective cohort study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of consensus in the literature as to whether anesthetic modality influences perioperative complications in hip fracture surgery. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia on postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent hip fracture surgery using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP).

METHODS

We used the ACS NSQIP to identify patients aged 50 and older who received either spinal or general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery from 2016 to 2019. Propensity-score matching was performed to control for clinically relevant covariates. The primary outcome of interest was the combined incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay and operative time.

RESULTS

Among the 40 527 patients aged 50 and over who received either spinal or general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery from 2016 to 2019, 7358 spinal anesthesia cases were matched to general anesthesia cases. General anesthesia was associated with a higher incidence of combined 30-day stroke, MI or death compared with spinal anesthesia (OR 1.219 (95% CI 1.076 to 1.381); p=0.002). General anesthesia was also associated with a higher frequency of 30-day mortality (OR 1.276 (95% CI 1.099 to 1.481); p=0.001) and longer operative time (64.73 vs 60.28 min; p<0.001). Spinal anesthesia had a longer average hospital length of stay (6.29 vs 5.73 days; p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our propensity-matched analysis suggests that spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia is associated with lower postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.

No clinically significant difference in postoperative pain and side effects comparing conventional and enhanced recovery total hip arthroplasty with early mobilization

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) leads to less morbidity, faster recovery, and, therefore, shorter hospital stays. The expected increment of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the U.S. highlights the need for sufficient pain management. The favorable use of short-lasting spinal anesthesia enables early mobilization but may lead to increased opioid consumption the first 24 h (h) postoperatively.

METHODS

In a retrospective study design, we compared conventional THA with postoperative immobilization for two days (non-ERAS) and enhanced recovery THA with early mobilization (ERAS group). Data assessment took place as part of the "Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Treatment project" (QUIPS). Initially, 2161 patients were enrolled, resulting in 630 after performing a matched pair analysis for sex, age, ASA score (American-Society-of-Anesthesiology) and preoperative pain score. Patient-reported pain scores, objectified by a numerical rating scale (NRS), opioid consumption and side effects were evaluated 24 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

The ERAS group revealed higher activity-related pain (p = 0.002), accompanied by significantly higher opioid consumption (p < 0.001). Maximum and minimum pain as well as side effects did not show significant differences (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to analyze pain scores, opioid consumption, and side effects in a matched pair analyses at this early stage and supports the implementation of an ERAS concept for THA. Taking into consideration the early postoperative mobilization, we were not able to detect a difference regarding postoperative pain. Although opioid consumption appeared to be higher in ERAS group, occurrence of side effects ranged among comparable percentages.

No Success without Effort: Follow-Up at Six Years after Implementing a Benchmarking and Feedback Concept for Postoperative Pain after Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is still ranked among the operations with the highest postoperative pain scores. Uncontrolled postsurgical pain leads to prolongated hospital stays, causes more frequent adverse reactions and can induce chronical pain syndromes. In 2014, we implemented a standardized, multidisciplinary pain management concept with continuous benchmarking at our tertiary referral center by using the "Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Management" (QUIPS) program with excellent results over a period of two years. The initial study ended in 2016 and we aimed to evaluate if it was possible to obtain the excellent short-term results over a period of six years without any extra effort within the daily clinical routine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective study design, we compared postoperative pain, side effects and functional outcome after primary THA for 2015 and 2021, using validated questionnaires from the QUIPS project. In contrast to the implementation of the pain management concept in 2014, the weekly meetings of the multidisciplinary health care team and special education for nurses were stopped in 2021. Data assessment was performed by an independent pain nurse who was not involved in pain management.

RESULTS

Altogether, 491 patients received primary THA in 2015 and 2021 at our tertiary referral center. Collected data revealed significantly worse maximum and activity-related pain (both p < 0.001) in combination with significantly higher opioid consumption in comparison to implementation in 2015. Though the patients reported to be less involved in pain management (p < 0.001), the worse pain scores were not reflected by patient satisfaction which remained high. While the participation rate in this benchmarking program dropped, we still fell behind in terms of maximum and activity-related pain in comparison to 24 clinics.

CONCLUSION

Significantly worse pain scores in combination with higher opioid usage and a lower hospital participation rate resemble a reduced awareness in postoperative pain management. The significantly lower patient participation in pain management is in line with the worse pain scores and indirectly highlights the need for special education in pain management. The fact patient satisfaction appeared to remain high and did not differ significantly from 2015, as well as the fact we still achieved an acceptable ranking in comparison to other clinics, highlight the value of the implemented multidisciplinary pain management concept.

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Contemporary Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Spinal anesthesia is increasingly used in complex patient populations including revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). This study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anesthesia in a large institutional series of revision THAs.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 4,767 revision THAs (4,533 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry. Of these cases, 86% had general and 14% had spinal anesthesia. Demographics between groups were similar with mean age of 66 years, 52% women, and mean body mass index of 29. Complications including all-cause rerevisions and reoperations were studied. Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on propensity score that accounted for patient and surgical factors. The mean follow-up was 7 years.

RESULTS

Patients treated with spinal anesthesia required fewer postoperative oral morphine equivalents (P < .001) and had lower numeric pain rating scale scores (P < .001). Spinal anesthesia had a decreased LOS (4.2 versus 4.8 days; P = .007), fewer cases of altered mental status (odds ratio (OR) 3.1, P = .001), fewer blood transfusions (OR 2.3, P < .001), fewer intensive care unit admissions (OR 2.3, P < .001), fewer rerevisions (OR 1.6, P = .04), and fewer reoperations (OR 1.5, P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Spinal anesthesia was associated with lower oral morphine equivalent use and reduced LOS in this large cohort of revision THAs. Furthermore, spinal anesthesia was associated with fewer cases of altered mental status, transfusion, intensive care unit admission, rerevision, and reoperation after accounting for numerous patient and operative factors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

A novel methodology to integrate outcomes regarding perioperative pain experience into a composite score: prediction model development and validation

BACKGROUND

An integrated score that globally assesses perioperative pain experience and rationally weights each component has not yet been developed.

METHODS

A development dataset specific to adult Chinese patients undergoing orthopedic surgery was obtained from PAIN OUT (1985 qualified patients of 2244). A more recent validation dataset obeying the same conditions was obtained from the Chinese Anesthesia Shared-database Platform (1004 qualified patients of 1032). Outcomes were assessed using the International Pain Outcomes Questionnaire (IPO-Q), which comprises key patient-level outcomes of perioperative pain management, including pain experience and perceptions of care. Using principal component analysis and regression models, a composite score was inferred to integrate pain experience. The discrimination of the composite score for dissatisfaction and desire for more pain treatment was compared with that of the worst pain score.

RESULTS

A composite score was developed from the 12 items of the IPO-Q regarding pain experience. The weight for calculating the composite score was worst pain 11, least pain 17, time spent in severe pain 11, interference with activity in bed 9, interference with breathing deeply or coughing 10, interference with sleep 9, anxiety 12, helplessness 12, nausea 0, drowsiness 2, itch 5, and dizziness 2. In external validation, the composite score indicated superior discrimination to the worst pain in predicting dissatisfaction (P<0.001) and desire for more pain treatment (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study introduced a methodology to integrate outcomes regarding perioperative pain experience into a composite score, which was based on the weight of each item.

Spinal Compared with General Anesthesia in Contemporary Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

The specific advantages of spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay, and postoperative outcomes associated with spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia in a large cohort of primary THAs from a single, high-volume academic institution.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 13,730 primary THAs (11,319 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our total joint registry. Of these cases, 58% had general anesthesia and 42% had spinal anesthesia. The demographic characteristics were similar between groups, with mean age of 64 years, 51% female, and mean body mass index (BMI) of 31 kg/m 2 . Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on a propensity score that accounted for numerous patient and operative factors. The mean follow-up was 6 years.

RESULTS

Patients treated with spinal anesthesia had lower Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) scores (p < 0.001) and required fewer postoperative oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) at all time points evaluated (p < 0.001). Patients treated with spinal anesthesia also had shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.02), fewer altered mental status events (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; p = 0.02), and fewer intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (OR, 0.7; p = 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (p = 0.8), pulmonary embolism (p = 0.4), 30-day readmissions (p = 0.17), 90-day readmissions (p = 0.18), all-cause revisions (p = 0.17), or all-cause reoperations (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, single-institution study, we found that spinal anesthesia was associated with reduced pain scores and OME use postoperatively. Furthermore, spinal anesthesia resulted in fewer altered mental status events and ICU admissions. These data favor the use of spinal anesthesia in primary THAs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Effects of Spinal Anesthesia in Geriatric Hip Fracture: A Propensity-Matched Study

OBJECTIVES

To identify whether anesthesia type is associated with surgical outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing operative treatment for a hip fracture.

DESIGN

Retrospective database review of prospectively collected data.

PATIENTS

Patients included in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. All included patients were 65-89 years of age and had a hip fracture treated with internal fixation, arthroplasty, or intramedullary device. Patients were excluded for open, pathologic, stress-related, or periprosthetic hip fractures.

INTERVENTION

Use of spinal anesthesia (SA) or general anesthesia (GA).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Complications, mortality, and discharge destination.

RESULTS

A total of 23,649 cases met inclusion and exclusion criteria and were successfully matched using propensity score matching: 15,766 GA and 7883 SA. The odds of sustaining a complication were 21% lower in the SA group compared with those in the GA group (odds ratio SA/GA 0.791; 95% confidence interval, 0.747-0.838). The 30-day mortality rate was not correlated with SA or GA choice. Patients who underwent SA were significantly more likely to be discharged to home (odds ratio SA/GA 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.531-1.773).

CONCLUSIONS

No mortality difference exists between patients undergoing SA and those undergoing GA for hip fracture surgery. For patients undergoing hip fracture surgery with SA, there is lower 30-day complication profile and higher discharge to home rate compared with those undergoing GA. Both anesthesia modalities may be acceptable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Different Concentrations of Ropivacaine under Ultrasound Guidance on Quadratus Lumbar Muscle Nerve Block in Elderly Patients with Hip Replacement

Objective

To compare the effect of ropivacaine in different concentrations under ultrasound guidance on lumbar muscle nerve blocking in elderly patients undergoing hip replacement surgery.

Methods

60 elderly patients underwent hip replacement in our hospital over a period of April to December of 2019 were equally randomized into control and observation groups, with 30 each. Patients in the control group and observation group received 0.5% and 0.25% ropivacaine to block psoas muscle nerve, respectively. The anesthetic effect of ropivacaine at different concentrations was evaluated by time of sensory block onset and recovery and time of motor block onset and regression, blood pressure, heart rate, visual analogy scale, and postoperative nerve blocking degree.

Results

The onset time of sensory and motor block in the observation group was dramatically higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05), while the recovery time of sensory and motor was significantly shorter than that of the control group (P < 0.05). The heart rate in the observation group was notably lower than that in the control group, while the average blood pressure was remarkably higher (P < 0.05). After surgery, the degree of nerve block in the observation group was much lower compared with the control group (P < 0.05), while no marked difference in the visual analogue scale in the control group before and after surgical intervention was observed (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The 0.25% ropivacaine method has distinctive advantages over 0.50% ropivacaine psoas nerve anesthesia in hip replacement surgery in elderly patients.

THE COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF ERECTOR SPINE PLANE BLOCK AND PARAVERTEBRAL BLOCK FOR EARLY REHABILITATION AFTER TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY

OBJECTIVE

The aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of erector spine plane block vs lumbar paravertebral block for early rehabilitation after total hip arthroplasty.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: The study included 60 ASA ІΙ-ΙΙΙ patients (female/male = 35/25) aged 41-82 years, undergone total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia. The patients randomly divided into two groups (n=30 in each) according to postoperative regional analgesia technique: paravertebral block (PVB) and erector spine plane block (ESPB). The time interval to meet three criteria: adequate analgesia (<4 points of VAS), opioid-free period longer than 12 h, and possibility to cover walking 30 m distance without time restriction was analyzed. We also analyzed opioid requirement postoperatively.

RESULTS

Results: The time interval to meet the three criteria after surgery was shorter to 9.4 h for patients in PVB group 36.3 h 95% CI 31.8 to 40.8 h than for patients in ESPB group 45.7 h 95% CI 40.1 to 51.3 h, (p = 0.016). During the first 24 h after surgery the total dose of nalbuphine per patient was significantly higher in ESPB group (10.7 95% CI 7.0 to 14.3) compared to PVB group (6.3 95% CI 3.7 to 9.0).

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: The paravertebral block and erector spine plane block provide quite effective pain relieve in patients undergone total hip arthroplasty (<4 points of VAS). PVB has more opioid-preserving effect than ESPB. The paravertebral block is superior to erector spine plane block for early rehabilitation after total hip arthroplasty (the time required for patients to meet the three criteria was shorter PVB than ESPB).

[Revision TKA due to instability: diagnostics, treatment options and outcomes]

BACKGROUND

Instability after primary TKA is a frequent reason for revision surgery. Other mechanisms of failure must be ruled out before an in-depth analysis of instability.

DIAGNOSTICS

Diagnostic tools for instability consist of medical history, clinical examination, and imaging. The clinical examination must focus primarily on the extent of the instability, the location of the instability and the levels of instability. Varus and valgus stress radiographs in the mediolateral plane in extension and flexion, as well as anteroposterior stress images (drawer) are mandatory. In addition, the underlying cause (or a combination of causes) must be defined. Possible causes include malalignment, component malposition (rotation), bony and ligamentous insufficiencies and implant-associated instabilities.

THERAPY

Once the mechanism of failure is understood in detail, various therapeutic options are available. Conservative therapy is only considered in patients where there is borderline instability, and the patient has adequate compensatory options in daily life. Some authors postulate the need for 3 months of conservative therapy in every case before possible surgery. Isolated inlay exchange is usually only a compromise and shows failure rates of up to 60%. Partial component exchange requires some preconditions and is technically demanding.

RESULTS

If the indication is correct, the results are consistently comparable with those after full component revision. In the case of full component revision, attention must be paid to the degree of constraint to achieve stability but also to avoiding over-treatment (too highly constrained TKA with an probability of loosening). In general, the results after revision surgery are worse in cases of instability than in cases of exchange surgery due to aseptic loosening or patellar abnormalities but better than in cases of infection or arthrofibrosis.

Implementing fast-track in total hip arthroplasty: rapid mobilization with low need for pain medication and low pain values : Retrospective analysis of 102 consecutive patients

Introduction

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is reported to be one of the most painful surgical procedures. Perioperative management and rehabilitation patterns are of great importance for the success of the procedure. The aim of this cohort study was the evaluation of function, mobilization and pain scores during the inpatient stay (6 days postoperatively) and 4 weeks after fast-track THA.

Materials and methods

A total of 102 consecutive patients were included in this retrospective cohort trial after minimally invasive cementless total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia in a fast-track setup. The extent of mobilization under full-weight-bearing with crutches (walking distance in meters and necessity of nurse aid) and pain values using a numerical rating scale (NRS) were measured. Function was evaluated measuring the range of motion (ROM) and the ability of sitting on a chair, walking and personal hygiene. Furthermore, circumferences of thighs were measured to evaluate the extent of postoperative swelling. The widespread Harris Hip Score (HHS) was used to compare results pre- and 4 weeks postoperatively.

Results

Evaluation of pain scores in the postoperative course showed a constant decrease in the first postoperative week (days 1–6 postoperatively). The pain scores before surgery were significantly higher than surgery (day 6), during mobilization (p < 0.001), at rest (p < 0.001) and at night (p < 0.001). All patients were able to mobilize on the day of surgery. In addition, there was a significant improvement in independent activities within the first 6 days postoperatively: sitting on a chair (p < 0.001), walking (p < 0.001) and personal hygiene (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the measured preoperative and postoperative (day 6 after surgery) thigh circumferences above the knee joint. Compared to preoperatively, there was a significant (p < 0.001) improvement of the HHS 4 weeks after surgery. In 100% of the cases, the operation was reported to be successful and all of the treated patients would choose a fast-track setup again.

Conclusion

Application of a fast-track scheme is effective regarding function and mobilization of patients. Low pain values and rapid improvement of walking distance confirms the success of the fast-track concept in the immediate postoperative course. Future prospective studies have to confirm the results comparing a conventional and a fast-track pathway.

Pain intensity in total hip arthroplasty patients: how communication influences satisfaction

INTRODUCTION

An important global measure of health care quality is patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction partially determines hospital reimbursement for procedures such as total hip arthroplasty (THA). Press Ganey (PG) survey responses assess patient satisfaction, and impact reimbursement. Current efforts to maximise repayment for THA include reducing postoperative pain. The "Pain Management" survey domain is considered a significant factor in patient ratings, but other studies have highlighted staff communication domains as determinants of satisfaction. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare PG survey responses to inpatient pain intensity.

METHODS

We queried the PG database for all patients who underwent a THA between November 2012 and January 2015. This yielded a total of 302 patients. Descriptive statistics were performed to analyse patient-level demographics. A multivariate regression model was constructed utilising pain intensity as the dependent variable.

RESULTS

Patients rating of "Communication with Doctors" (B = -25.534; p < 0.001) and "Communication about Medicines" (B = -31.49; p = < 0.001) domains were representative of patient pain intensity. No other factors demonstrated a significant relationship to pain intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction continues to be important in care quality. Surrogate markers, such as the PG survey, can guide institutions looking to improve care. Our study revealed scores for "Communication with Doctors" and "Communication about Medicines" best represented true pain intensity levels for THA recipients during the postoperative period. The "Pain Management" domain did not display a relationship to pain intensity. The current method of measuring patient satisfaction should be reassessed to better represent patient responses and outcomes.

Spinal Anesthesia Is Associated With Decreased Complications After Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

We compared the following 30-day outcomes for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty in spinal anesthesia (SA) versus general anesthesia (GA) (1) mortality, (2) major and minor complication rates, and (3) discharge disposition.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database contained 45,871 SA total hip arthroplasties and 65,092 receiving GA. There were 80,077 SA TKAs and 103,003 GA TKAs. Adjusted multivariate logistic regression evaluated associations between anesthesia type and 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

Anesthesia modality was not associated with 30-day mortality (P > 0.05). The GA cohorts were at a greater risk for any complication, major complications, and minor complications (P < 0.05). Patients who received GA were at an increased risk for nonhome discharge.

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo total joint arthroplasty with SA experience fewer 30-day complications and are less likely to have a nonhome discharge than those with GA.

Intranasal Low-Dose Dexmedetomidine Reduces Postoperative Opioid Requirement in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroplasty Under General Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) need substantial amount of opioids for postoperative pain management, which necessitates opioid-sparing modalities. Dexmedetomidine is a novel alpha-2-adrenoceptor-activating drug for procedural sedation. In addition to its sedative effect, dexmedetomidine has analgesic and antiemetic effects. We evaluated retrospectively the effect of intraoperatively administered intranasal low-dose dexmedetomidine on postoperative opioid requirement in patients undergoing THA.

METHODS

We included 120 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists status 1-2, age between 35 and 80 years, and scheduled for unilateral primary THA under general anesthesia with total intravenous anesthesia. Half of the patients received 50 μg of intranasal dexmedetomidine after anesthesia induction, while the rest were treated conventionally. Postoperative opioid requirements were calculated as morphine equivalent doses for both groups. The impact of intranasal dexmedetomidine on postoperative hemodynamics and length of stay was evaluated.

RESULTS

The cumulative postoperative opioid requirement was significantly reduced in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the control group (26.3 mg, 95% confidence interval 15.6-36.4, P < .001). The cumulative dose was significantly different between the groups already at 12, 24, and 36 h postoperatively (P = .01; P = .001; P < .001, respectively). Dexmedetomidine group had lower mean arterial pressure in the postanesthesia care unit compared with the control group (P = .01). There was no difference in the postanesthesia care unit stay or postoperative length of stay between the two groups (P = .47; P = .10, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the control group, intraoperative use of intranasal low-dose dexmedetomidine decreases opioid consumption and sympathetic response during acute postoperative period in patients undergoing THA.

Comparison of interscalene block, general anesthesia, and intravenous analgesia for out-patient shoulder reduction

Purpose

Shoulder dislocation is often associated with intense pain, and requires urgent pain therapy and reduction. Interscalene block, general anesthesia, or intravenous analgesia alone are applied procedures that facilitate shoulder reduction by the surgeon and ease patients’ pain. This study was conducted to compare procedure times, patient satisfaction, side-effects, and clinical outcome of these clinical procedures.

Methods

Retrospective chart analysis was performed for all patients treated at the Emergency Department of a primary care hospital. In addition, standardized telephone interviews were conducted. Subjective clinical outcome and patient satisfaction (SF-36, Quick-DASH, ZUF-8) were measured with the standardized questionnaires.

Results

The shortest overall procedure time [67.5 min (48.8–93.5 min), P = 0.003] was found in patients with interscalene block. The advantage of general anesthesia was the shortest anesthesia induction time [10 min (7.8–10 min), P < 0.0001]; reduction time [6 min (4.3–6 min), P = 0.039]; and time to discharge [90 min (67.5–123.8 min), P = 0.0001] were significantly prolonged in comparison to interscalene block [5 min (1–5 min) and 45 min (2–67.5 min)]. The longest reduction time [11 min (10–13.5 min), P = 0.0008] was seen in patients in the intravenous analgesia group. Overall, patient satisfaction was greater in patients with regional as compared to general anesthesia [measured by ZUF-8: 12 (9–15) vs. 17 (12–24), P = 0.03]. Subjective clinical outcome (SF-36, DASH) was comparable among the three groups. There was one immediately identified esophageal intubation in the general anesthesia group.

Conclusions

Out-patient shoulder reduction can be accomplished no matter whether general anesthesia, regional anesthesia, or intravenous analgesia alone was administered. Clinical outcome as measured by SF-36 and DASH was comparable among the three groups, but the shortest overall procedure time and greater patient satisfaction were found in patients with interscalene block.

Course of pain after total hip arthroplasty within a standardized pain management concept: a prospective study examining influence, correlation, and outcome of postoperative pain on 103 consecutive patients

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative pain management options are of great importance for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, as joint replacement surgery is reported to be one of the most painful surgical procedures. This study demonstrates pain outcome until 4 weeks postoperatively and evaluates factors influencing pain in the postoperative course after total hip arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 103 patients were included in this prospective cohort trial and underwent total hip arthroplasty. Postoperative pain was described using a numerical rating scale (NRS); demographic data and perioperative parameters were correlated with postoperative pain.

RESULTS

Evaluation of pain scores in the postoperative course showed a constant decrease in the first postoperative week (mean NRS 3.1 on day 1 to mean NRS 2.3 on day 8) and, then, a perpetual increase for 3 days (mean NRS 2.6 on day 9 to mean NRS 2.3 on day 12). Afterwards, a continuous pain-level decrease was stated (continuous to a mean NRS 0.9 on day 29). No correlation was found between the potential influencing factors sex, age, body mass index, duration of surgery, ASA score, and postoperative pain levels, but a high significant correlation could be stated for preoperative pain levels and postoperative pain intensity (pain while moving p < 0.02 to p < 0.05 depending on the time period "week 1 postoperatively", "week 2-4", or "week 1-4"; pain while resting p < 0.001, in all the measured time intervals, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Increasing pain levels after the first week postoperatively, for 3 days, are most likely to be caused by the change to more extensive mobilization and physiotherapy in the rehabilitation unit. No significant influence or correlation on the intensity of postoperative pain could be found while evaluating potential predictors except preoperative pain levels. Pain management has to take these findings into account in the future to further increase patients' satisfaction in the postoperative course after total hip arthroplasty and to adapt pain management programs.

Orthopedic Professionals' Recognition and Knowledge of Pain and Perceived Barriers to Optimal Pain Management at Five Hospitals

Pain is a challenge for orthopedic healthcare professionals (OHCP). However, pain studies examined the competencies of a single OHCP category, did not consider various pain management domains or barriers to optimal pain service, and are deficient across the Arabic Eastern Mediterranean region. We surveyed OHCP's recognition and knowledge of pain and perceived barriers to optimal pain service (361 OHCP, five hospitals). Chi square compared doctors' (n = 63) vs. nurses/physiotherapists' (n = 187) views. In terms of pain recognition, more nurses had pain management training, confidently assessed pediatric/elderly pain, were aware of their departments' pain protocols, and felt that their patients receive proper pain management. More doctors comfortably prescribed opiate medications and agreed that some nationalities were more sensitive to pain. For pain knowledge, more nurses felt patients are accurate in assessing their pain, vital signs are accurate in assessing children's pain, children feel less pain because of nervous system immaturity, narcotics are not preferred due respiratory depression, and knew pre-emptive analgesia. As for barriers to optimal pain service, less nurses agreed about the lack of local policies/guidelines, knowledge, and skills; time to pre-medicate patients; knowledge about medications; complexity of the clinical environment; and physicians being not comfortable prescribing pain medication. We conclude that doctors required confidence in pain, especially pediatric and geriatric pain, using vital signs in assessing pain and narcotics use. Their most perceived barriers were lack of local policies/guidelines and skills. Nurses required more confidence in medications, caring for patients on narcotics, expressed fewer barriers than doctors, and the complexity of the clinical environment was their highest barrier. Educational programs with clinical application could improve OHCPs' pain competencies/clinical practices in pain assessment and administration of analgesics.