Current Trends in Anesthesia Management in Hallux Valgus

A prospective comparison of WALANT technique and general anesthesia in forefoot surgery

INTRODUCTION

Wide Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet (WALANT) technique has been widely used in hand surgery, but there are few prospective data on its use in forefoot surgery.

HYPOTHESIS

The WALANT technique reduces pain compared to general anesthesia for bone surgery on the first ray of forefoot.

METHODS

This was a prospective, longitudinal, comparative, non-randomized cohort study in adult patients undergoing bone surgery on the first ray of forefoot. The primary objective was the level of pain (0-10 visual analogic scale) 4 h after the procedure with WALANT technique versus general anesthesia supplemented by ropivacaine infiltration.

RESULTS

A total 37 patients were analyzed in the WALANT group and 24 in the general anesthesia group (women, 90.2%; mean age, 51.3 years; hallux valgus, 85.2%; first metatarsal osteotomy, 80.3%). After generalized linear regression adjusted on a priori defined factors, there was no statistically difference for pain ≤3 at 4 h in WALANT vs. general anesthesia (odds-ratio 1.66; 95% CI, 0.17-20.49; p = 0.2548). At 24 h, pain level was also comparable in the two groups. Time spent in operating room was significantly shorter with WALANT (40.8 vs. 49.7 min; p = 0.0001). Mean length of stay in the recovery room was also significantly shorter with WALANT (4.4 vs. 75.6 min; p < 0.0001). Anxiety before/after surgery, uptake of analgesic/anti-inflammatory drugs and quality of life were comparable in the two anesthesia groups.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative pain with WALANT technique or general anesthesia was comparable. Time spent in the operating room and in recovery room was significantly shorter with WALANT technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; prospective non-randomized comparative study.

Global research trends and hotspots analysis of hallux valgus: A bibliometric analysis from 2004 to 2021

Background

Hallux valgus (HV) is a common foot and ankle surgery disease. The correction of HV deformity relies on a highly challenging surgical treatment. Thus, widely adopted evidence-based clinical guidelines are still needed to guide the selection of the most appropriate interventions. Recently, the study of HV has been growing and scholars are increasingly paying particular attention to this area. However, bibliometric literature remains lacking. Therefore, this study aims to reveal the hotspots and future research trends in HV via bibliometric analysis to fill this knowledge gap.

Methods

Literature related to HV from 2004 to 2021 was retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-expanded) of the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Quantitative and qualitative analyses of scientific data are performed using software such as CiteSpace, R-bibliometrix, and VOSviewer.

Results

A total of 1,904 records were identified for analysis. The United States had the most number of published articles and total citations. Thus, the United States has made an essential contribution to the field of HV. Meanwhile, La Trobe University in Australia was the most productive institution. Menz HB and Foot &amp; Ankle International were the most influential authors and the most popular journals among researchers, respectively. In addition, “older people,” “chevron osteotomy,” “Lapidus,” and “hallux rigidus” have always been the hotspots of attention. Changes and developments in the surgery of HV have gained researchers' interest. Future research trends are more focused on “radiographic measurement,” “recurrence,” “outcome,” “rotation,” “pronation,” and “minimally invasive surgery.” Thus, focusing on these subject directions can facilitate academic progress and provide the possibility of better treatments for HV.

Conclusion

This study summarizes the hotspots and trends in the field of HV from 2004 to 2021, which will provide researchers with an updated view of essential information and somehow guide future research.

Opioid-Free Forefoot Surgery vs Traditional Perioperative Opiate Regimen: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In response to the opioid epidemic, the use of multimodal pain management in orthopaedic surgery is increasing. Efforts to decrease opioid prescribing and opioid consumption among foot and ankle surgical patients are needed. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and adverse events between 2 multimodal pain management pathways for forefoot surgical patients: standard opioid-containing (OC) and opioid-free (OF).

METHODS

This is a single-center noninferior randomized controlled trial of 51 patients undergoing forefoot surgery allocated to one of 2 perioperative pain management treatments: opioid-free, multimodal (OF, n=27 patients), or traditional opioid-containing (OC, n=24 patients). Patient characteristics, creatine markers, pain (numeric rating scale [NRS]), general health (Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey [VR-12]), and depression were measured preoperatively. Postoperatively, pain was measured at 24-hour, 2-week, and 6-week time points. Satisfaction with pain control, complications, and general health were measured at 2 and 6 weeks.

RESULTS

The OF group is statistically noninferior to the OC group and reported lower median pain scores at 24 hours (2 [IQR 0, 3] vs 6 [IQR 3.5, 7]; p<.0001) and 2 weeks (2 [IQR 1, 4] vs 4 [IQR 0, 3]; p=.018]. By 6 weeks, pain levels were similar between groups. More than 85% of all patients reported satisfaction with pain level at 2 weeks, which increased to >90% at 6 weeks. The VR-12 scores were similar between groups across all time points. At 2 weeks, 8 patients in each group reported constipation. By 6 weeks, all but 2 OC patients reported resolution. No other adverse events of postoperative wound complications, readmissions, medication reactions, thrombosis, or persistent pain were documented.

CONCLUSION

In forefoot surgery, the opioid-free pain management protocol was statistically noninferior to the opioid-containing protocol in reducing postoperative pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective cohort study.