A pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of a femoral nerve block and periarticular infiltration for early pain relief following total knee arthroplasty

Comparison ultrasound-guided adductor canal block and surgeon-performed block for pain management after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

Adductor canal block (ACB) is widely performed for postoperative analgesia for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare surgeon-assisted and anesthesiologist-assisted (ultrasound-guided) adductor blocks in terms of postoperative analgesic efficacy.

METHODS

This study was designed as a double-blind, prospective and randomized trial. A total of 240 participants were randomly allocated to three groups: one where the surgeon performed the adductor canal block (ACBs), another where it was conducted by an anesthetist with ultrasound guidance (ACBa), and a third group without the adductor block. The follow-up management after the Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) procedure occurred on the first, third, and tenth days, as well as the twelfth week. Outcome measures comprised pain assessment using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and monitoring opioid analgesic consumption.

RESULTS

No significant differences in demographic profiles were observed between the groups. Groups ACBa and ACBs exhibited significantly lower VAS scores compared to the control group at both 3 and 12 h after surgery, with group ACBa showing the lowest VAS scores among all groups. However, at 1 day, 3 days, 10 days and 12 weeks after surgery, there was no significant difference in VAS scores between the ACBa and ACBs groups. On the first three days, the ACBa group had the lowest opioid consumption and the lowest total opioid consumption. The differences in VAS scores between the groups began to decrease on the first day after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The adductor canal block (ACB) has been demonstrated to be an effective method of reducing pain in patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) in the postoperative period. Nevertheless, despite the pronounced impact that ACB performed by an anesthesiologist under ultrasound guidance has on VAS scores according to intraoperative ACB by surgeons, its effect on clinical outcomes has not been demonstrated.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

This study was retrospectively registered with the Clinical Trials Registry Platform on July 31, 2024 (NCT06533085).

One-day surgery is safe and effective in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A prospective comparative study at 1 year of follow-up

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes and complications of two perioperative protocols for the management of patients who underwent medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA): 24 h (1-day surgery [OS]) versus 72 h (enhanced recovery after surgery [ERAS]) of the length of hospital stay (LOS). In our hypothesis, the reduction of the LOS from 3 to 1 day did not influence the outcomes and complications.

METHODS

A total of 42 patients (21 in each group) with isolated anteromedial knee osteoarthritis and meeting specific criteria were prospectively included in the study. Clinical outcomes included Knee Society Score (KSS) and Forgotten joint score while pain evaluation was performed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Functional outcomes were assessed measuring the knee range of motion (ROM) while radiographic outcomes were evaluated measuring the amelioration of the varus deformity through the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA).

RESULTS

Clinical and functional outcomes did not significantly differ between the two groups. Complications occurred in 9.5% of OS and 4.7% of ERAS group patients. Significant improvements in knee ROM, VAS pain, KSS and HKA angle were observed postsurgery, with no significant differences between groups except in KSS expectations and function trends.

CONCLUSION

The OS protocol is safe and effective and LOS, in a well-defined fast-track protocol, did not significantly impact clinical and functional outcomes. OS may lead to reduced hospitalisation costs and potential reductions in complications associated with prolonged stays, benefiting both patients and healthcare facilities. However, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is needed to confirm these findings. Early mobilisation and rehabilitation protocols are key components of successful patient recovery following UKA procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Intraoperative Anesthetic Therapies for Analgesic Efficacy and Morphine Consumption Following Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare intraoperative anesthetic therapies for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) regarding postoperative analgesic efficacy and morphine consumption by conducting a systematic literature search.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of TKA using various anesthetic therapies were identified from various databases from conception through December 31, 2021. A network meta-analysis of relevant literature was performed to investigate which treatment showed better outcomes. In total, 40 trials were included in this study.

RESULTS

Surface under the cumulative ranking curve showed local infiltration anesthesia (LIA) with saphenous nerve block (SNB) to produce the best pain relief on postoperative days (PODs) 1 and 2 and the best reduction of morphine consumption on PODs 1 and 3. However, femoral nerve block showed the largest effect on pain relief on POD 3, and liposomal bupivacaine showed the largest effect on reduction of morphine consumption on POD 2.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this network meta-analysis, surface under the cumulative ranking curve percentage showed that LIA with SNB provided the best analgesic effect after TKA. Furthermore, patients receiving LIA with SNB had the lowest consumption of morphine. Although femoral nerve block resulted in better pain relief on POD 3, LIA with SNB could be selected first when trying to reduce morphine consumption or increase early ambulation.

Periarticular Infiltration Compared to Single Femoral Nerve Block in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Study

Objective  To compare patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) under spinal anesthesia and single femoral nerve block (FNB) with subjects undergoing TKA under spinal anesthesia and periarticular infiltration (PAI). Materials and Methods  A total of 100 patients undergoing primary TKA were randomized into two groups. Group 1 included patients undergoing surgery under FNB associated with spinal anesthesia, while group 2 included patients undergoing TKA under IPA and spinal anesthesia. The assessment of these subjects in the early postoperative period included pain, active flexion, active extension, elevation of the extended limb, and morphine use. Results  There was no significant difference in the types of analgesia concerning pain, the elevation of the extended limb, and morphine use. Active flexion and extension were better in the PAI group ( p  = 0.04 and p  = 0.02 respectively). Conclusion  We conclude that the techniques are similar regarding pain control, limb elevation, and morphine use. The use of IPA provided better active flexion and extension during the hospital stay compared to single FNB in patients undergoing TKA.

Engaging Patients and Caregivers to Develop a Patient-Centered Agenda for Comparative Effectiveness Research Focused on the Treatment of Complex Knee Problems

Complex articular cartilage loss in the knee is being diagnosed more frequently and earlier in life, and patients are faced with major decisions regarding invasive surgical interventions at increasingly younger ages. There is a critical unmet need to provide patient-centered comparative effectiveness research for the hundreds of thousands of patients faced with these treatment decisions each year. Toward filling the need, we developed the Patient AdvisoR Team iN Orthopaedic ReSearch (PARTNORS) program. We recruited a diverse group of patients and caregivers with lived experiences in dealing with complex knee problems to define patient-centered research priorities for comparative biological and artificial knee surgery research for middle-aged adults. Adapting the Stakeholder Engagement in Question Development and Prioritization Method, PARTNORS defined a 20-question list of patient-centered research questions of factors influencing a patients' choice between biological and artificial knee surgeries. The highest prioritized research question related to functional level postsurgery as it relates to daily activities and recreational activities. The second highest prioritized research questions related to insurance coverage and financial costs. Other prioritized research areas included caregiving needs, implant longevity, recovery and rehabilitation time, patient satisfaction and success rates, individual characteristics, and risks. By engaging a group of patients and caregivers and including them as members of a multidisciplinary research team, comparative effectiveness research that includes patient-centered factors that go beyond typical clinical success indicators for knee surgery can be designed to allow physicians and patients to work together toward evidence-based shared decisions. This shared decision-making process helps to align patients' and health care team's goals and expectations to improve outcomes.

Comparison of ultrasound-guided genicular nerve block and knee periarticular infiltration for postoperative pain and functional outcomes in knee arthroplasty - A randomised trial

Background and Aims

Optimal analgesia after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) enhances patients' and surgical outcomes. The study investigated the ultrasound-guided genicular nerve block versus the periarticular infiltration in TKA.

Methods

Eighty-eight patients aged above 50 years scheduled for unilateral TKA were randomised as: Group 1 received intraoperative periarticular infiltration (0.5 mL adrenaline [4.5 µg/mL], 20 mL bupivacaine 0.5% with 89.5 mL saline) and Group 2 received immediate postoperative genicular nerve block (15 mL bupivacaine 0.25% with 2.5 g/mL adrenaline). The postoperative morphine consumption was during the first two postoperative days the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were time to rescue analgesia, pain scores and functional outcomes. The comparison between groups was performed using the Chi-square test, the Student's t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate.

Results

The postoperative morphine consumption during the first two postoperative days and pain scores at rest at 12 h postoperatively were less in Group 1 than in Group 2 (P < 0.001). Pain scores during movement on the first postoperative day were lower in the periarticular group than the genicular group at 6, 12 and 24 h (P < 0.001). At 18 h, pain scores were higher in the periarticular group than in the genicular group at rest and movement (P < 0.001). Quadriceps motor strength scores were comparable between groups (P > 0.05). The knee range of motion and time up and go test during both days showed a statistically significant difference in the periarticular group compared to the genicular group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Periarticular infiltration and genicular nerve block yield effective postoperative analgesia and functional outcomes after TKA without motor affection.

Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted knee replacement systems have been introduced to healthcare services worldwide in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for people, although high-quality evidence that they are clinically, or cost-effective remains sparse. Robotic-arm systems may improve surgical accuracy and could contribute to reduced pain, improved function and lower overall cost of total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. However, TKR with conventional instruments may be just as effective and may be quicker and cheaper. There is a need for a robust evaluation of this technology, including cost-effectiveness analyses using both within-trial and modelling approaches. This trial will compare robotic-assisted against conventional TKR to provide high-quality evidence on whether robotic-assisted knee replacement is beneficial to patients and cost-effective for healthcare systems.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial-Knee is a multicentre, participant-assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted TKR compared with TKR using conventional instruments. A total of 332 participants will be randomised (1:1) to provide 90% power for a 12-point difference in the primary outcome measure; the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months postrandomisation. Allocation concealment will be achieved using computer-based randomisation performed on the day of surgery and methods for blinding will include sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will be reported in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. A parallel study will collect data on the learning effects associated with robotic-arm systems.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by an ethics committee for patient participation (East Midlands-Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee, 29 July 2020. NRES number: 20/EM/0159). All results from the study will be disseminated using peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, lay summaries and social media as appropriate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN27624068.

Periarticular Injection in Total Knee Arthroplasty

Optimal pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can expedite postoperative recovery, improve perioperative outcomes, and increase patient satisfaction. Periarticular injections (PAIs) have become increasingly used to improve pain management after TKA. Similar to peripheral nerve blocks, the use of intraoperative PAIs can lower pain scores and expedite discharge from the hospital. However, there is notable variability in the ingredients and administration techniques of PAIs. Currently, no standard of care exists for PAIs, especially in the setting of adjuvant peripheral nerve blocks. This study seeks to evaluate the ingredients, administration techniques, and outcomes of PAIs used during TKA.

Gonyautoxins 2/3 Local Periarticular Injection for Pain Management after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Double-Blind, Randomized Study

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of periarticular infiltration of gonyautoxin 2/3 (GTX 2/3) and a mixture of levobupivacaine, ketorolac, and epinephrine for pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Forty-eight patients were randomly allocated to receive periarticular infiltration of 40 µg GTX 2/3 (n = 24) diluted in 30 mL of sodium chloride 0.9% (study group) or a combination of 300 mg of levobupivacaine, 1 mg of epinephrine, and 60 mg ketorolac (n = 24) diluted in 150 mL of sodium chloride 0.9% (control group). Intraoperative anesthetic and surgical techniques were identical for both groups. Postoperatively, all patients received patient-controlled analgesia (morphine bolus of 1 mg; lockout interval of 8 minutes), acetaminophen, and ketoprofen for 72 hours. A blinded investigator recorded morphine consumption, which was the primary outcome. Also, the range of motion (ROM) and static and dynamic pain were assessed at 6, 12, 36, and 60 hours after surgery. The incidence of adverse events, time to readiness for discharge, and length of hospital stay were also recorded. The median of total cumulative morphine consumption was 16 mg (range, 0-62 mg) in the GTX 2/3 group and 9 mg (range, 0-54 mg) in control group, which did not reach statistical difference (median test, p = 0.40). Furthermore, static and dynamic pain scores were similar at all time intervals. GTX 2/3 was inferior in range of motion at 6 and 12 hours; nevertheless, we noted no difference after 36 hours. No differences between groups were found in terms of complications, side effects, or length of hospital stay. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of breakthrough morphine requirement. However, local anesthetic use resulted in an increased ROM in the first 12 hours. This prospective randomized clinical trial shows that GTX 2/3 is a safe and efficient drug for pain control after TKA; nevertheless, more studies using GTX 2/3 with larger populations are needed to confirm the safety profile and efficiency. This is level 1 therapeutic study, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

Efficacy of Preoperative Piroxicam, Diclofenac, Paracetamol With Tramadol and Placebo Tablets for Relief of Postoperative Pain After the Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Aim

We aimed to analyze the influence of preoperative piroxicam, diclofenac, paracetamol, tramadol, and placebo tablets as measured in the time required for rescue analgesia for postoperative pain relief after the extraction of impacted mandibular third molar.

Materials & methods

Forty-four patients who needed extraction of impacted mandibular third molar were arbitrarily categorized into four groups namely, piroxicam, diclofenac, paracetamol with tramadol, and placebo. The test medicine was given one hour preoperatively before the surgical removal. The pain was assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS) scores preoperatively and at the third and 24^th hours. The time required for escape analgesia was measured. 

Results

The mean VAS and VRS scores showed significant differences across the groups after 24 hours. The mean score was lowest for the patients taking piroxicam (1.30+1.95) and highest for patients taking tramadol + paracetamol (4.50+2.59). As far as escape analgesia is concerned piroxicam group was by far superior.

Conclusion

The pain scores and the rescue analgesic requirement suggested that piroxicam analgesic significantly reduced pain; moreover, it is a safe as well as an efficacious substitute to the conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mandibular third molar impactions.

Reducing opioid usage in total knee arthroplasty postoperative pain management: a literature review and future directions

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common orthopedic surgery performed with a projected 3.5 million procedures to be done by 2030. Current postoperative pain management for TKA is insufficient, as it results in extensive opioid consumption and functional decline postoperatively. This study identifies the best practices for postoperative TKA pain management through a literature review of the last three years. Studies utilizing interventional techniques (local infiltration analgesia, nerve blocks) and pharmacologic options were reviewed on PubMed, Embase, Ovid Medline and Scopus. Primary outcomes analyzed were the effect of different analgesic approaches on pain reduction, opioid use reduction and improvements in functional mobility or quadriceps strength postoperatively. Additionally, this paper explores the use of cooled radiofrequency ablation, a minimally invasive therapy, for preoperative and postoperative TKA pain management.

An Update on Multimodal Pain Management After Total Joint Arthroplasty

➤

Multimodal analgesia has become the standard of care for total joint arthroplasty as it provides superior analgesia with fewer side effects than opioid-only protocols.

➤

Systemic medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, corticosteroids, and gabapentinoids, and local anesthetics via local infiltration analgesia and peripheral nerve blocks, are the foundation of multimodal analgesia in total joint arthroplasty.

➤

Ideally, multimodal analgesia should begin preoperatively and continue throughout the perioperative period and beyond discharge.

➤

There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of intravenous acetaminophen or liposomal bupivacaine as part of multimodal analgesia protocols.

Peripheral nerve block anesthesia/analgesia for patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: recommendations from the International Consensus on Anesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery (ICAROS) group based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis: randomized controlled and observational studies investigating the impact of PNB utilization on major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, neurologic, infectious, and bleeding complications.Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were queried from 1946 to August 4, 2020.The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality and for the development of recommendations.

RESULTS

Analysis of 122 studies revealed that PNB use (compared with no use) was associated with lower ORs for (OR with 95% CIs) for numerous complications (total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), respectively): cognitive dysfunction (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53/OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80), respiratory failure (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74/OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75), cardiac complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93/OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), surgical site infections (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64/OR 0.86 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), thromboembolism (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96/OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and blood transfusion (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86/OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current body of evidence, the consensus group recommends PNB use in THA/TKA for improved outcomes.

RECOMMENDATION

PNB use is recommended for patients undergoing THA and TKA except when contraindications preclude their use. Furthermore, the alignment of provider skills and practice location resources needs to be ensured. Evidence level: moderate; recommendation: strong.

Implementation of a rapid recovery protocol in total knee arthroplasty. A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Rapid recovery (RP) in total knee arthroplasty may increase the functionality while reducing costs. The aim of this study is to prove the benefits of a rapid recovery program compared to our classic protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a RCT (NCT03823573) in patients undergoing otal knee arthroplasty. Intervention group (RP protocol) received local infiltration of levo-bupivacaine in the periarticular tissue and supervized ambulation 4-6h after surgery. Control (C) group received a femoral nerve block with levo-bupivacaine, while a drain was used. Ambulation after its removal. All the patients completed an Oxford Knee Score prior to surgery and 6 months after discharge. An ecodoppler to assess the presence of deep vein thrombosis was made one month after discharge. Minimum follow-up was of 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 175 patients were included in the trial (92 patients in the control group, 83 patients in the RP group). There were no differences in sex, age, implanted prosthesis, hemoglobin drop, need for transfusion, range of motion on discharge (C: 82.6°, RP: 85°) and at the end of the follow-up (C: 105.1, RP: 106.6), Oxford Knee Score improvement (C: 17.5 points; RP: 19.3 points), patient satisfaction or re-admissions at the emergency department (C: 7.6%; RP: 10.8%). Significancy was found on time of ischemia (C: 81.29min; RP: 85.35min; P=0.03), need for morphine shots (C: 19.7%; RP: 38.6%; P=0.007), hospital stay (C: 3.84 days; RP: 2.54 days, P<0.0001) and time until ambulation (C: 2.46 days; RP: 0.23 days; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Rapid recovery protocols can reduce hospital stay without increasing complications or need for re-admission.

Patient and Public Involvement Within Orthopaedic Research: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review of patient and public involvement in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of orthopaedic surgery. We assessed the prevalence, extent, and quality of patient and public involvement (PPI) in current academic orthopaedic practice.

METHODS

A literature search of the Cochrane, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was performed; we identified RCTs that were published between 2013 and 2020 in the 10 orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factors. Inclusion of studies was based on set criteria, and they were analyzed for their validity. The results were assessed for the rate and the quality of PPI reporting. The Wright and Foster guidelines and the GRIPP2-SF (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public-2 short form) checklist were used to assess PPI reporting. This review was reported in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

An initial 2,107 results were identified. After the screening process, 475 full-text articles were identified and reviewed. Two papers that described PPI were included in this review. One paper used PPI to inform the research question, the choice of primary outcome, the oversight of the study schedule, and the dissemination of the results. The second article used PPI to design the study protocol. Both articles poorly reported the impact of PPI on the research.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this systematic review is the first to describe the prevalence, extent, and quality of PPI reporting in orthopaedic RCTs. Barriers to adequate PPI reporting are multifactorial and stem from a lack of systematic uptake of PPI guidelines and a lack of compulsory PPI reporting from publishing bodies.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

PPI can improve the quality of clinical trials by focusing on the clinical questions and outcomes that are most important to patients. This article assesses the prevalence of PPI reporting in orthopaedic RCTs.

Assessing outcome in postoperative pain trials: are we missing the point? A systematic review of pain-related outcome domains reported in studies early after total knee arthroplasty

ABSTRACT

The management of acute postoperative pain remains suboptimal. Systematic reviews and Cochrane analysis can assist with collating evidence about treatment efficacy, but the results are limited in part by heterogeneity of endpoints in clinical trials. In addition, the chosen endpoints may not be entirely clinically relevant. To investigate the endpoints assessed in perioperative pain trials, we performed a systematic literature review on outcome domains assessing effectiveness of acute pain interventions in trials after total knee arthroplasty. We followed the Cochrane recommendations for systematic reviews, searching PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, resulting in the screening of 1590 potentially eligible studies. After final inclusion of 295 studies, we identified 11 outcome domains and 45 subdomains/descriptors with the domain "pain"/"pain intensity" most commonly assessed (98.3%), followed by "analgesic consumption" (88.8%) and "side effects" (75.3%). By contrast, "physical function" (53.5%), "satisfaction" (28.8%), and "psychological function" (11.9%) were given much less consideration. The combinations of outcome domains were inhomogeneous throughout the studies, regardless of the type of pain management investigated. In conclusion, we found that there was high variability in outcome domains and inhomogeneous combinations, as well as inconsistent subdomain descriptions and utilization in trials comparing for effectiveness of pain interventions after total knee arthroplasty. This points towards the need for harmonizing outcome domains, eg, by consenting on a core outcome set of domains which are relevant for both stakeholders and patients. Such a core outcome set should include at least 3 domains from 3 different health core areas such as pain intensity, physical function, and one psychological domain.

A comparison of analgesic techniques for total knee arthroplasty: A network meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

There is no established analgesic method for postoperative total knee arthroplasty. We comprehensively compared the analgesic methods for postoperative total knee arthroplasty.

DESIGN

A network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was used to compare 18 interventions, which were ranked by six outcome indices, to select the best modality.

SETTING

Postoperative recovery room and inpatient ward.

PATIENTS

98 randomised controlled trials involving 7452 patients (ASA I-III) were included in the final analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

Studies that included the use of at least one of the following 12 nerve block(fascia iliaca compartment block (FIB), FNB, cFNB, single femoral nerve block (sFNB), adductor canal block (ACB), sciatic nerve block (SNB), obturator nerve block (ONB), continuous posterior lumbar plexus block (PSOAS), FNB + SNB, ACB + LIA, FNB + LIA, PCA + FNB).

MEASUREMENTS

Pain intensity was compared using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Also, postoperative complications, function score, hospital length of stay, morphine consumption and patient satisfaction were measured.

MAIN RESULTS

For visual analogue scale scores, continuous femoral nerve block (FNB) and FNB + sciatic nerve block (SNB) were the the most effective interventions. For reducing postoperative complications, fascia iliaca compartment block, FNB, SNB, and obturator nerve block showed the best results. For reducing postoperative morphine consumption, adductor canal block (ACB) + local infiltration analgesia (LIA) and FNB + SNB were preferred. For function scores (range of motion, Timed-Up-and-Go test), ACB and LIA were optimal choices. For reducing hospital length of stay and patient satisfaction, ACB + LIA and FNB + LIA were best, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Peripheral nerve block, especially FNB and ACB, is a better option than other analgesic methods, and its combination with other methods can be beneficial. Peripheral nerve block is a safe and effective postoperative analgesia method. However, our findings can only provide objective evidence. Clinicians should choose the treatment course based on the individual patient's condition and clinical situation.

Tourniquet use in total knee replacement surgery: a feasibility study and pilot randomised controlled trial (SAFE-TKR study)

INTRODUCTION

Tourniquets are routinely used during total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. They could increase the risk of thromboembolic events including cerebral emboli, cognitive decline, pain and other adverse events (AEs). A randomised controlled trial to assess whether tourniquet use might safely be avoided is therefore warranted but it is unclear whether such a trial would be feasible.

METHODS

In a single-site feasibility study and pilot randomised controlled trial, adults having a TKR were randomised to surgery with an inflated tourniquet versus a non-inflated tourniquet. Participants underwent brain MRI preoperatively and within 2 days postoperatively. We assessed cognition using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) and thigh pain using a Visual Analogue Scale at baseline and days 1 and 2, and 1 week postsurgery. AEs related to surgery were recorded up to 12 months.

RESULTS

We randomised 53 participants (27 tourniquet inflated and 26 tourniquet not inflated). Fifty-one participants received care per-protocol (96%) and 48 (91%) were followed up at 12 months. One new ischaemic brain lesion was detected. Of the cognitive tests, MoCA was easy to summarise, sensitive to change with lower ceiling effects compared with OCS and MMSE. There was a trend towards more thigh pain (mean 49.6 SD 30.4 vs 36.2 SD 28 at day 1) and more AEs related to surgery (21 vs 9) in participants with an inflated tourniquet compared with those with a tourniquet not inflated.

CONCLUSION

A full trial is feasible, but using MRI as a primary outcome is unlikely to be appropriate or feasible. Suitable primary outcomes would be cognition measured using MoCA, pain and AEs, all of which warrant investigation in a large multicentre trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN20873088.

Tourniquet use for knee replacement surgery

BACKGROUND

Many surgeons prefer to perform total knee replacement surgery with the aid of a tourniquet. A tourniquet is an occlusive device that restricts distal blood flow to help create a bloodless field during the procedure. A tourniquet may be associated with increased risk of pain and complications.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of tourniquet use in knee replacement surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to 26 March 2020. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization trials portal, and several international registries and joint registries up to March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing knee replacement with use of a tourniquet versus without use of a tourniquet and non-randomised studies with more than 1000 participants. Major outcomes included pain, function, global assessment of success, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events (including venous thromboembolism, infection, re-operation, and mortality), cognitive function, and survival of the implant. Minor outcomes included blood loss, economic outcomes, implant stability, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened abstracts and full texts, extracted data, performed risk of bias assessments, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 RCTs with 2819 participants. Trials included from 20 to 199 participants. Mean age ranged between 58 and 84 years. More than half of the RCTs had unclear risk of selection bias and unclear risk of performance and detection bias due to absence of blinding of participants and surgeons. Major outcomes Pain: at postoperative day 1, pain (on a scale from zero to 10, with higher scores indicating worse pain) was ranked at 4.56 points after surgery without a tourniquet and at 1.25 points (MD) higher (95% CI 0.32 higher to 2.19 higher) with a tourniquet (8 studies; 577 participants), for an absolute difference of 12.5% higher pain scores (95% CI 3.2% higher to 21.9% higher) and a relative difference of 19% higher pain scores (95% CI 3.4% higher to 49% higher) with a tourniquet. Evidence for these findings was of moderate certainty, downgraded due to risk of bias. Knee replacement with a tourniquet probably led to higher postoperative pain scores at day 1, although this difference may or may not be noticeable to patients (based on a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1.0). Function: at 12 months, tourniquet use probably makes little or no difference to function, based on an MCID of 5.3 for Knee Society Score (KSS) and 5.0 for Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Mean function (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes) was 90.03 points after surgery without a tourniquet and was 0.29 points worse (95% CI 1.06 worse to 0.48 better) on a 0 to 100 scale, absolute difference was 0.29% worse (1.06% worse to 0.48% better), with a tourniquet (5 studies; 611 participants). This evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. Global assessment of success: low-certainty evidence (downgraded due to bias and imprecision) indicates that tourniquet use may have little or no effect on success. At six months, 47 of 50 (or 940 per 1000) reported overall successful treatment after surgery without a tourniquet and 47 of 50 (or 940 per 1000) with a tourniquet (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10) based on one study with 100 participants. Health-related quality of life: at six months, tourniquet may have little or no effect on quality of life. The 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) score (mental component from zero to 100 (100 is best)) was 54.64 after surgery without a tourniquet and 1.53 (MD) better (95% CI 0.85 worse to 3.91 better) with a tourniquet (1 study; 199 participants); absolute difference was 1.53% better (0.85% worse to 3.91% better). Evidence was of low certainty, downgraded due to risk of bias and small number of participants. Serious adverse events: the risk of serious adverse events was probably higher with tourniquet; 26 of 898 (29 per 1000) reported events following surgery without a tourniquet compared to 53 of 901 (59 per 1000) with a tourniquet (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73) in 21 studies (1799 participants). Twenty-nine more per 1000 patients (95% CI 3 to 50 more per 1000 patients) had a serious adverse event with a tourniquet. Forty-eight (95% CI 20 to 345) participants would need to have surgery without a tourniquet to avoid one serious adverse event. This evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. Cognitive function: one study reported cognitive function as an outcome; however the data were incompletely reported and could not be extracted for analysis. Survival of implant: it is uncertain if tourniquet has an effect on implant survival due to very low certainty evidence (downgraded for bias, and twice due to very low event rates); 2 of 107 (19 per 1000) required revision surgery in the surgery with a tourniquet group compared to 1 of 107 (9 per 1000) without a tourniquet group at up to two years' follow-up (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 8.92). This equates to a 0.4% (0.7% lower to 7% more) increased absolute risk in surgery with a tourniquet.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence shows that knee replacement surgery with a tourniquet is probably associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events. Surgery with a tourniquet is also probably associated with higher postoperative pain, although this difference may or may not be noticeable to patients. Surgery with a tourniquet does not appear to confer any clinically meaningful benefit on function, treatment success or quality of life. Further research is required to explore the effects of tourniquet use on cognitive function and implant survival, to identify any additional harms or benefits. If a tourniquet continues to be used in knee replacement surgery, patients should be informed about the potential increased risk of serious adverse events and postoperative pain.

Controversial Topics in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A 5-Year Update (Part 1)

This review article examines updates to the literature during the past 5 years on numerous topics related to total knee arthroplasty which were felt to have ongoing controversy. These include the use of peripheral nerve blocks and local infiltrative analgesia, intrathecal morphine, patellar resurfacing, and bearing designs.

Postoperative Pain Management in Total Knee Arthroplasty

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common surgeries performed to relieve joint pain in patients with end‐stage osteoarthritis or rheumatic arthritis of the knee. However, TKA is followed by moderate to severe postoperative pain that affects postoperative rehabilitation, patient satisfaction, and overall outcomes. Historically, opioids have been widely used for perioperative pain management of TKA. However, opioids are associated with undesirable adverse effects, such as nausea, respiratory depression, and retention of urine, which limit their application in daily clinical practice. The aim of this review was to discuss the current postoperative pain management regimens for TKA. Our review of the literature demonstrated that multimodal analgesia is considered the optimal regimen for perioperative pain management of TKA and improves clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction, through a combination of several types of medications and delivery routes, including preemptive analgesia, neuraxial anesthesia, peripheral nerve blockade, patient‐controlled analgesia and local infiltration analgesia, and oral opioid/nonopioid medications. Multimodal analgesia provides superior pain relief, promotes recovery of the knee, and reduces opioid consumption and related adverse effects in patients undergoing TKA.

Efficacy of Single-Shot Adductor Canal Block Combined With Posterior Capsular Infiltration on Postoperative Pain and Functional Outcome After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Adductor canal block (ACB) may preserve muscle strength and promote faster recovery than other methods of analgesia following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there are contradictory reports on the efficacy of ACB. Here, we evaluated the efficacy of single-shot ACB combined with posterior capsular infiltration (PCI) vs multimodal periarticular infiltration analgesia in treating postoperative pain.

METHODS

This study involved patients undergoing unilateral primary TKA at our institution from January 2018 to January 2019. Patients were randomized into 2 groups, one of which was treated with ACB combined with PCI, and the other with periarticular infiltration analgesia. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain as assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) and consumption of morphine hydrochloride. The secondary outcome was functional recovery, as assessed by range of knee motion, quadriceps strength, and daily ambulation distance. Tertiary outcomes included the duration of hospital stay and postoperative adverse effects.

RESULTS

Patients treated with ACB and PCI had lower resting VAS scores at 8 and 24 hours after surgery, and lower VAS scores during motion within 48 hours after surgery. Patients treated with ACB and PCI also consumed less morphine. There was no difference in functional recovery, duration of hospitalization, or incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The ACB combined with PCI can reduce postoperative pain sooner after TKA without affecting postoperative functional recovery and increasing complications.

Peripheral Nerve Blocks vs Periarticular Injections in Total Knee Arthroplasty

In patients undergoing surgery, optimal pain management is associated with improved perioperative outcomes, patient satisfaction with surgery, and a more rapid functional recovery. In recent years, the employment of multimodal pain management strategies has become increasingly widespread. In particular, there has been an explosion in the use of peripheral nerve blockade and periarticular injections in total knee arthroplasty. However, there is significant variability in the administration of either modality of anesthesia. As such, a critical evaluation of the current literature is warranted to elucidate the advantages and disadvantages of each technique with the ultimate goal of further refining current pain control strategies. In this symposium, we review each of these modalities and their association with pain management, narcotic consumption, length of hospital stay, and adverse events.

Comparison of Periarticular Local Infiltration Analgesia With Femoral Nerve Block for Total Knee Arthroplasty: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is accompanied by moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. Postoperative pain will hamper functional recovery and lower patients' satisfaction with surgery. Recently, periarticular local infiltration analgesia (LIA) has been widely used in TKA. However, there is no definite answer as to the efficacy and safety of LIA compared with femoral nerve block (FNB).

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials about relevant studies were searched from PubMed (1996 to July 2017), Embase (1980 to July 2017), and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, July 2017). Ten studies which compared LIA with FNB methods were included in our meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Ten studies containing 950 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our pooled data indicated that LIA was as effective as the FNB in terms of visual analog scale score for pain at 24 hours (P = .52), 48 hours (P = .36), and 72 hours (P = .27), and total morphine consumption (P = .27), range of motion (P = .45), knee society score (P = .51), complications (P = .81), and length of hospital stay (P = .75).

CONCLUSIONS

Our current meta-analysis results demonstrated that there were no differences in efficacy between the FNB and LIA method.

Cost-effective peri-operative pain management: assuring a happy patient after total knee arthroplasty

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the optimal regimen for the management of pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by comparing the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of different protocols implemented at a large, urban, academic medical centre.

Patients and Methods

Between September 2013 and September 2015, we used a series of modifications to our standard regimen for the management of pain after TKA. In May 2014, there was a department-wide transition from protocols focused on femoral nerve blocks (FNB) to periarticular injections of liposomal bupivacaine. In February 2015, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was removed from the protocol while continuing liposomal bupivacaine injections. Quality measures and hospital costs were compared between the three protocols.

Results

The cohort being treated with PCA-less liposomal bupivacaine injections had a significantly higher percentage of patients who were discharged to their home (p = 0.010) and a significantly shorter length of stay (p < 0.001). Patient-reported Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores relating to pain being “well-controlled” and “overall pain management” also favoured this cohort (p = 0.214 and p = 0.463, respectively), in which cost was significantly lower compared with the other two cohorts (p = 0.005).

Conclusion

The replacement of FNBs injections and the removal of PCAs, both of which are known to be associated with high rates of adverse outcomes, and the addition of liposomal bupivacaine periarticular injections to a multimodal pain regimen, led to improvements in many quality measures, HCAHPS pain scores, and cost-effectiveness.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B(1 Supple A):55–61.