Abstract
Purpose: Recent animal evidence has suggested that Bupivicaine may be harmful to articular cartilage. The purpose of this study was establish whether, following arthroscopy of the knee, infiltration of Bupivicaine around the portals is as effective as intra-articular infiltration for post-operative analgesia.
Method: Consecutive patients attending for knee arthroscopy were consented and randomised to one of two groups. Following arthroscopy, Group I received 20mls 0.5% Bupivicaine infiltrated into the joint; Group II received 20mls 0.5% Bupivicaine infiltrated around the portals. A Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was collected at one hour post-operatively and rescue analgesia recorded. A power calculation was performed. Ethical approval was granted.
Results: There were 68 patients in Group I (intra-articular) and 69 patients in Group II (portal). There was no significant difference in the age or sex distribution of patients in either group. The mean VAS score was 3.04 in Group I and 3.24 in Group II. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.619). There was also no significant difference in the need for rescue analgesia (p=0.930). The study has demonstrated equivalence between the two groups, within one VAS point (Power = 80%).
Conclusion: We would recommend that following knee arthroscopy, Bupivicaine should be infiltrated around the portals, avoiding intra-articular infiltration.
Correspondence should be addressed to Mr T Wilton, c/o BOA, BASK at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England.
