Aims

The overall aim of this study was to determine the impact of deprivation with regard to quality of life, demographics, joint-specific function, attendances for unscheduled care, opioid and antidepressant use, having surgery elsewhere, and waiting times for surgery on patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Māori consistently have poorer health outcomes compared to non-Māori within Aotearoa. Numerous worldwide studies demonstrate that ethnic minorities receive less analgesia for acute pain management. We aimed to compare analgesic management of a common orthopaedic injury, tibial shaft fracture, between Māori and non-Māori. A retrospective cohort study from January 1. st. , 2015, to December 31. st. 2020 inclusive. Eligible patients were 16–65 years old and had isolated closed tibial shaft fractures. 104 patients were included in the study, 48 Māori and 56 Non-Māori. Baseline demographics were similar between the 2 cohorts. The primary outcome measure was type of analgesia charted on the ward. Secondary outcome measures were pre-hospital medications given, pain scores on arrival to the emergency department (ED) and the ward, time to analgesia in ED and type of analgesia given in ED. Statistics were calculated using Fisher's exact test, Pearson's chi-squared test or Wilcoxson's rank sum test as appropriate. No statistically significant differences were found in opiates or synthetics charted to Māori vs Non-Māori (83% vs 89% and 77% vs 88% respectively), opiates given in ED, time to analgesia in ED or ED and ward arrival pain scores. Of statistical significance is that Māori were less likely to receive pre-hospital medication compared to Non-Māori (54% vs 80% respectively, p=0.004). Māori were significantly less likely to receive pre-hospital pain medication compared to Non-Māori. However no other statistically significant findings were found when comparing pain scores, time to analgesia or type of pain relief charted for Māori vs non-Māori. The reasons for Māori receiving significantly less prehospital medication were not explored in this study and further investigation is required to reduce the bias that exists in this area

The signaling molecule prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), synthesized by cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), is immunoregulatory and reported to be essential for skeletal stem cell function. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in osteoarthritis (OA) analgesia, but cohort studies suggested that long-term use may accelerate pathology. Interestingly, OA chondrocytes secrete high amounts of PGE2. Mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) chondrogenesis is an in vitro OA model that phenocopies PGE2 secretion along with a hypertrophic OA-like cell morphology. Our aim was to investigate cause and effects of PGE2 secretion in MSC-based cartilage neogenesis and hypertrophy and identify molecular mechanisms responsible for adverse effects in OA analgesia. Human bone marrow-derived MSCs were cultured in chondrogenic medium with TGFβ (10ng/mL) and treated with PGE2 (1µM), celecoxib (COX-2 inhibitor; 0.5µM), AH23848/AH6809 (PGE2 receptor antagonists; 10µM), or DMSO as a control (n=3–4). Assessment criteria were proteoglycan deposition (histology), chondrocyte/hypertrophy marker expression (qPCR), and ALP activity. PGE2 secretion was measured (ELISA) after TGFβ withdrawal (from day 21, n=2) or WNT inhibition (2µM IWP-2 from day 14; n=3). Strong decrease in PGE2 secretion upon TGFβ deprivation or WNT inhibition identified both pathways as PGE2 drivers. Homogeneous proteoglycan deposition and COL2A1 expression analysis showed that MSC chondrogenesis was not compromised by any treatment. Importantly, hypertrophy markers (COL10A1, ALPL, SPP1, IBSP) were significantly reduced by PGE2 treatment, but increased by all inhibitors. Additionally, PGE2 significantly decreased ALP activity (2.9-fold), whereas the inhibitors caused a significant increase (1.3-fold, 1.7-fold, 1.8-fold). This identified PGE2 as an important inhibitor of chondrocyte hypertrophy. Although TGFβ and WNT are known pro-arthritic signaling pathways, they appear to induce a PGE2-mediated antihypertrophic effect that can counteract pathological cell changes in chondrocytes. Hampering this rescue mechanism via COX inhibition using NSAIDs thus risks acceleration of OA progression, indicating the need of OA analgesia adjustment

Aims. Single-shot adductor canal block (ACB) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for postoperative analgesia is a common modality. Patients can experience breakthrough pain when the effect of ACB wears off. Local anaesthetic infusion through an intra-articular catheter (IAC) can help manage breakthrough pain after TKA. We hypothesized that combined ACB with ropivacaine infusion through IAC is associated with better pain relief compared to ACB used alone. Methods. This study was a prospective double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of combined ACB+ IAC-ropivacaine infusion (study group, n = 68) versus single-shot ACB+ intra-articular normal saline placebo (control group, n = 66) after primary TKA. The primary outcome was assessment of pain, using the visual analogue scale (VAS) recorded at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included active knee ROM 48 hours after surgery and additional requirement of analgesia for breakthrough pain. Results. The study group (mean visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score of 5.5 (SD 0.889)) experienced significant reduction in pain 12 hours after surgery compared to the control group (mean VAS 6.62 (SD 1.356); mean difference = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.46 to 0.67; p < 0.001), and pain scores on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD-2 were lower in the study group compared to the control group (mean difference in VAS pain = 1.04 (-1.39 to -0.68, 95% CI, p < 0.001). Fewer patients in the study group (0 vs 3 in the control group) required additional analgesia for breakthrough pain, but this was not statistically significant. The study group had significantly increased active knee flexion (mean flexion 86.4° (SD 7.22°)), compared to the control group (mean 73.86° (SD 7.88°), mean difference = 12.54, 95% CI 9.97 to 15.1; p < 0.014). Conclusion. Combined ACB+ ropivacaine infusion via IAC is a safe, reproducible analgesic modality after primary TKA, with superior analgesia compared to ACB alone. Further large volume trials are warranted to generate evidence on clinical significance on analgesia after TKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1082–1088

We recently performed a clinical trial comparing motor sparing blocks (MSB) to periarticular infiltration (PAI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We found that MSBs provided longer analgesia (8.8 hours) than PAI with retention of quadriceps strength, and with similar function, satisfaction, and length of hospital stay. However, its potential increased cost could serve as a barrier to its adoption. Therefore, our aim was to compare the costs of MSBs to PAI following TKA. We conducted a retrospective review of data from our previous RCT. There were 82 patients included in the RCT (n=41 MSB group, n=41 PAI group). We compared the mean total costs associated with each group until hospital discharge including intervention costs, healthcare professional service fees, intraoperative medications, length of stay, and postoperative opioid use. Seventy patients were included (n=35 MSB group, n=35 PAI group). The mean total costs for the MSB group was significantly higher ($1959.46 ± 755.4) compared to the PAI group ($1616.25 ± 488.33), with a mean difference of $343.21 (95% CI = $73.28 to $664.11, p = 0.03). The total perioperative intervention costs for performing the MSB was also significantly higher however postoperative inpatient costs including length of stay and total opioid use did not differ significatnly. Motor sparing blocks had significantly higher mean total and perioperative costs compared to PAI with no significant difference in postoperative inpatient costs. However, its quadricep sparing nature and previously demonstrated prolonged postoperative analgesia can be used to facilitate an outpatient TKA pathway thereby offsetting its increased costs

Aims. Young adults undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) largely have different indications for surgery, preoperative function, and postoperative goals compared to a standard patient group. The aim of our study was to describe young adult THA preoperative function and quality of life, and to assess postoperative satisfaction and compare this with functional outcome measures. Methods. A retrospective cohort analysis of young adults (aged < 50 years) undergoing THA between May 2018 and May 2023 in a single tertiary centre was undertaken. Median follow-up was 31 months (12 to 61). Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and focus group-designed questionnaires were distributed. Searches identified 244 cases in 225 patients. Those aged aged under 30 years represented 22.7% of the cohort. Developmental dysplasia of the hip (50; 45.5%) and Perthes’ disease (15; 13.6%) were the commonest indications for THA. Results. Preoperatively, of 110 patients, 19 (17.2%) were unable to work before THA, 57 (52%) required opioid analgesia, 51 (46.4%) were reliant upon walking aids, and 70 (63.6%) had sexual activity limited by their pathology. One patient required revision due to instability. Mean OHS was 39 (9 to 48). There was a significant difference between the OHS of cases where THA met expectation, compared with the OHS when it did not (satisfied: 86 (78.2%), OHS: 41.2 (36.1%) vs non-satisfied: 24 (21%), OHS: 31.6; p ≤ 0.001). Only one of the 83 patients (75.5%) who returned to premorbid levels of activity did so after 12 months. Conclusion. Satisfaction rates of THA in young adults is high, albeit lower than commonly quoted figures. Young adults awaiting THA have poor function with high requirements for mobility aids, analgesia, and difficulties in working and undertaking leisure activities. The OHS provided a useful insight into patient function and was predictive of satisfaction rates, although it did not address the specific demands of young adults undertaking THA. Function at one year postoperatively is a good indication of overall outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):304–311

Purpose: After surgeons at a regional centre for orthopaedics began to use a simplified version of multimodal analgesia protocol in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), using intra-operative periarticular infiltration of bupivacaine and epinephrine, it was decided to review which methods of anaesthesia and analgesia were being used in the unit and how effective these were in terms of postoperative analgesic requirements and patient mobility. Methods: A retrospective casenote review was conducted of 67 consecutive patients undergoing primary TKA. Data were collected in the areas of demographics, anaesthetic analgesia, mobility and length of stay. Results: Of 67 patients, 31 received periarticular local anaesthetic, 23 underwent femoral nerve block and 13 had neither. Patients who had the periarticular injection required significantly less morphine. In addition, length of stay was shorter and mobility was achieved sooner in these patients. Discussion: Our technique of periarticular injection is the simplest to be described to date, using injection of bupivacaine and epinephrine alone. Unlike most previous studies, we have shown a significant improvement in postoperative mobility and a reduction in length of hospital stay, as well as confirming previous findings of a reduction in the use of opioids. This study also confirms the efficacy of bupivacaine in periarticular injections, as most previous trials have used ropivacaine, and shows that the technique is practical for use in an NHS orthopaedic unit. Conclusion: This study has described the use of a simple technique of analgesia by periarticular injection, which has reduced the amount of opiate analgesia required postoperatively, as well as showing benefits in mobility and length of hospital stay

Background. Adequate pain management is mandatory for patients' early rehabilitation and improvement of outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Conventional pain management, consisted of mainly opioids, has some adverse effects such as dizziness and nausea. Motor blockade occasionally resulted from epidural analgesics. A novel multimodal analgesic strategy with peripheral nerve block, peri-articular injection (PAI) and intravenous patient controlled analgesia (IVPCA) were utilized for our patients receiving TKA. In this study, we compared the clinical efficacy and adverse effects in the group of multimodal analgesia (MA) or epidural analgesia alone. Methods. One hundred and eighteen patients undergoing TKA with spinal anesthesia were enrolled. Patients of TKA received either our protocol of multimodal analgesia or patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) alone. MA included ultrasound guided nerve block in femoral and obturator nerves before spinal anesthesia, and PAI mixed with NSAID, morphine, ropivacaine and epinephrine, as well as IVPCA after surgeries. The analgesic effect with numeric rating scale (NRS) and occurrence of adverse effects, including motor blockade, numbness, postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV), and dizziness were recorded for all patients. Results. Thirty-one patients received MA, and eighty-seven patients received PCEA. No significant difference of NRS in MA and PCEA group within 24 hours after surgery either in rest (0.2 ± 1 compared with 0.22 ± 0.98; p = 0.930) or motion (0.40 ± 1.56 compared with 0.31± 1.23; p = 0.764). MA group sustained lesser motor blockade than PCEA (6.45% compared with 22.98%; p = 0.028) beyond 24 hours after surgery. The occurrence of numbness is lower in MA group (18.52%) compared with PCEA group(43.33%) (p=0.031). No statistic difference of PONV and dizziness is noted between two groups. However, there is a trend that lesser PONV and dizziness occurred in MA group than PCEA group. Conclusion. TKA patients receiving either MA or PCEA have adequate analgesic efficacy after surgeries. MA group has a lower incidence of motor blockade and PONV than PCEA. This multimodal analgesia proposed here has shown patients' safety and improved pain control after TKA, decreased narcotics use and their associated side effects. Besides, lesser motor blockade and adequate pain relief may encourage patient's early rehabilitation

Background. Orthopedic surgeons have relied heavily on opiates after total hip replacement (THR) despite no clear evidence of benefit and a rapidly growing abuse epidemic. Multimodal analgesia may reduce or even obviate the need for opiates after elective surgery. Methods. In a cluster-randomized, crossover trial, 235 patients undergoing THR were assigned to receive multimodal analgesia with minimal opiates (Group A-10 tablets), multimodal analgesia with a full opiate supply (Group B-60 tablets), or a traditional opiate regimen without multimodal analgesia (Group C-60 tablets). The multimodal regimen comprised scheduled-dose acetaminophen, meloxicam, and gabapentin. Primary outcomes were daily pain and opiate utilization for the first 30-days. Secondary outcomes included assessments of satisfaction, sleep-quality, opiate-related symptoms, hip function, and adverse events. Results. Daily pain was significantly lower in both multimodal groups, Group A (Coeff −0.81, p=0.003) and Group B (Coeff −0.61, p=0.021). While daily utilization and duration of opiate use was lower for both Group A (Coeff −0.77, p<0.001) and Group B (Coeff −0.30, p=0.04) compared with Group C, opiate use was also lower for Group A than Group B (Coeff −0.46, p=0.002). There were significantly fewer opiate-related symptoms in Group A compared to Group C (p=0.005), but Group B and C didn't differ (p=0.13). Additionally, both multimodal regimens improved satisfaction and sleep, and there was no difference in hip function or adverse events. Conclusion. A multimodal analgesic regimen with minimal opiates improved pain control while significantly decreasing opiate utilization and opiate-related adverse effects. It's time to rethink traditional opiate prescription after elective surgery

Aims. The use of multimodal non-opioid analgesia in hip fractures, specifically acetaminophen combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), has been increasing. However, the effectiveness and safety of this approach remain unclear. This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes among patients with hip fractures who preoperatively received either acetaminophen combined with NSAIDs, NSAIDs alone, or acetaminophen alone. Methods. This nationwide retrospective cohort study used data from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. We included patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent surgery for hip fractures and received acetaminophen combined with NSAIDs (combination group), NSAIDs alone (NSAIDs group), or acetaminophen alone (acetaminophen group) preoperatively, between April 2010 and March 2022. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and complications. Secondary outcomes were opioid use postoperatively; readmission within 90 days, one year, and two years; and total hospitalization costs. We used propensity score overlap weighting models, with the acetaminophen group as the reference group. Results. We identified 93,018 eligible patients, including 13,068 in the combination group, 29,203 in the NSAIDs group, and 50,474 in the acetaminophen group. Propensity score overlap weighting successfully balanced patient characteristics among the three groups, with no significant difference in in-hospital mortality rates observed among the groups (combination group risk difference 0.0% (95% CI -0.5 to 0.4%); NSAIDs group risk difference -0.2% (95% CI -0.5 to 0.2%)). However, the combination group exhibited a significantly lower risk of in-hospital complications than the acetaminophen group (risk difference -1.9% (95% CI -3.2 to -0.6%)) as well as a significantly lower risk of deep vein thrombosis (risk difference -1.4% (95% CI -2.2 to -0.7%)). Furthermore, total hospitalization costs were higher in the NSAIDs group than in the acetaminophen group (difference USD $438 (95% CI 249 to 630); p < 0.001). No significant differences in other secondary outcomes were observed among the three groups. Conclusion. The combination of acetaminophen with NSAIDs appears to be safe and advantageous in terms of reducing in-hospital complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):849–857

Introduction and purpose: In this study we present the comparative results of two prospective studies carried out on 236 patients, treated with 5 different types of intravenous analgesia after knee arthroplasty, with the aim of detecting any differences. Materials and methods: We designed 5 different analgesia protocols that were approved by the Ethics Committee of our Hospital. Protocol A: Tramadol and Ketorolac. Protocol B: Meperidine and Ketorolac. Protocol C: PCA pump administration of Morphine Chloride and Magnesium Metamizol Protocol D: Tramadol and Dexketoprofen Trometanol Protocol E: Meperidine and Dexketoprofen Trometanol. We measured the following variables at 6, 24 and 48 hours: VAS (visual analog scale), nausea and vomiting as well as the rescue medication used, time to walking, patient satisfaction and hospital stay. Results: The 236 patients were distributed in groups of 40, except for group C in which there were 38 patients. Forty patients were lost to follow-up or did not comply with the inclusion criteria. With dexketoprofen trometanol associated with an opioid – tramadol or meperidine- pain control was satisfactory, whereas in the other 3 groups during the first 6 hours analgesic control was insufficient; the differences found were statistically significant. With the addition of an antiemetic (metoclopramide) there was a decrease in nausea and vomiting. Hospital stay was also shorter in patients with protocols D and E. Conclusion: On the basis of the data obtained in our study, we can conclude that dexketoprofen trometanol – in association with an opiate (tramadol or meperidine) is the NSAID of choice for intravenous analgesia after primary knee arthroplasty, since it shows good analgesic control, shortens hospital stays and has fewer secondary effects

Use of epidural analgesia post-operatively in spinal surgery is becoming increasingly common. We have conducted a prospective study examining the side-effects associated with epidurals and the need for additional analgesia in 36 adult patients undergoing either lumbar spine decompression, lumbar spine fusion, or a combination of decompression and fusion. A mixture of bupivacaine and fentanyl was used for up to 72 hours post-operatively via an epidural catheter placed under direct vision at the time of surgery. All patients had urinary catheters inserted peri-operatively. 15 patients experienced one or more side-effects; 6 patients had a subjectively unpleasant sensory block, 3 patients developed a motor block, 4 patients had pruritus, 3 developed hypotension, and 2 had episodes of nausea or vomiting. All these features resolved upon reduction of the epidural rate or cessation of the epidural. All patients required additional oral analgesia at some point during their observation. There were no serious complications, such as infection, permanent neurological deficit, or cord compression. We conclude epidural analgesia following lumbar spine surgery is a safe practice, although the high rate of side-effects necessitates close observation by fully trained staff. It appears additional oral analgesia is required to obtain satisfactory levels of analgesia

Aims. This non-blinded randomised controlled trial compared the effect of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) versus local infiltration analgesia (LIA) within an established enhanced recovery programme on the attainment of discharge criteria and recovery one year after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The hypothesis was that LIA would increase the proportion of patients discharged from rehabilitation by the fourth post-operative day but would not affect outcomes at one year. Patients and Methods. A total of 242 patients were randomised; 20 were excluded due to failure of spinal anaesthesia leaving 109 patients in the PCEA group and 113 in the LIA group. Patients were reviewed at six weeks and one year post-operatively. Results. There was no difference in the proportion of patients discharged from rehabilitation by the fourth post-operative day, (77% in the PCEA group, 82% in the LIA group, p = 0.33), mean length of stay (four days in each group, p = 0.540), day of first mobilisation (p = 0.013) or pain (p = 0.278). There was no difference in mean Oxford Knee Scores (41 points in each group, p = 0.915) or the rate of complications in the two groups. Conclusion. Both techniques provided adequate pain relief, enabled early mobilisation and accelerated rehabilitation and good patient-reported outcomes up to one year post-operatively. PCEA and LIA are associated with similar clinical outcomes following TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B1189–96

Introduction. Despite recent national advances in the care for the hip fracture patient, significant morbidity and mortality persists. Some of this morbidity is attributable to the analgesia provided in the hospital setting. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence recommends the use of simple oral analgesia including opioids, with fascia-iliac blocks used as an adjunct. Literature review reveals a paucity of evidence on this topic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of fascia iliac blocks through analysis of pre and post-operative opioid usage, post-operative delirium, time to bowel opening and naloxone use. Methods. A retrospective study was performed between September-December 2013. Inclusion criteria were determined. 41 patients who received spinal anaesthesia alone and 41 patients who received spinal anaesthesia and a fascia-iliac block were included. Results. Patients who received a fascia-iliac block received significantly less post-operative and total analgesia (p=0.04, p=0.03), had lower rates of delirium (p=0.03) and those patients which were discharged directly home had a shorter inpatient stay (p=0.03). No patients who received a fascia-iliac block needed naloxone to reverse opioid toxicity, whilst two non fascia iliac block patients did. Conclusions. Fascia iliac blocks either given in A&E or at the time of spinal anaesthesia are a useful adjunct to provide analgesia in the hip fracture patient. The John Radcliffe hospital aims to incorporate fascia-iliac blocks into the care pathway for the hip fracture patient

Wrist block has been used to provide pain relief for many procedures on the hand and wrist but its role in arthroscopy of the wrist remains unexplored. Chondrotoxicity has been a concern with the intra-articular infiltration of local anaesthetic. We aimed to evaluate and compare the analgesic effect of portal and wrist joint infiltration with a wrist block on the pain experienced by patients after arthroscopy of the wrist. A prospective, randomised, double-blind trial was designed and patients undergoing arthroscopy of the wrist under general anaesthesia as a day case were recruited for the study. Levo-bupivacaine was used for both techniques. The effects were evaluated using a ten-point visual analogue scale, and the use of analgesic agents was also compared. The primary outcomes for statistical analyses were the mean pain scores and the use of analgesia post-operatively. . A total of 34 patients (63% females) were recruited to the portal and joint infiltration group and 32 patients (59% males) to the wrist block group. Mean age was 40.8 years in the first group and 39.7 years in the second group (p > 0.05). Both techniques provided effective pain relief in the first hour and 24 hours post-operatively but wrist block gave better pain scores at bedtime on the day of surgery (p = 0.007) and at 24 hours post-operatively (p = 0.006). . Wrist block provides better and more reliable analgesia in patients undergoing arthroscopy of the wrist without exposing patients to the risk of chondrotoxicity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1250–6

Studies have shown significantly shorter hospital stays and earlier return to mobilization when epidural analgesia was used in lower extremity surgeries. This study quantified the effects of epidural analgesia on lower extremity kinetics and kinematics during gait. There were no significant differences found in hip, knee, or ankle joint moments or angles between baseline (no drug) and epidural trials, using two different drugs. These findings indicate that epidural analgesia does not alter normal gait in healthy subjects, suggesting that patients requiring epidural analgesia following orthopaedic surgery may also be able to participate in rehabilitation without significant epidural-related changes in gait. Epidural analgesia has been used post-operatively following chest, abdominal and lower extremity surgery, with significantly shorter hospital stay and earlier return to mobilization demonstrated. This study quantified the effects of epidural analgesia on lower extremity kinetics and kinematics during gait. Ten healthy volunteers were tested on different days with two drugs. With the catheter (L3-L4 intervertebral space) in place but prior to drug administration, gait was assessed. Testing was repeated 30 min after drug administration. Motion and ground reaction force data were recorded during walking with a four-camera video-based system (Motion Analysis Corp) and force platform (Kistler). No significant differences existed in 3-D hip, knee, or ankle joint moments or angles among baseline (no drug) and drug trials. These findings indicate that epidural analgesia does not alter normal gait in healthy subjects, suggesting that patients requiring epidural analgesia following orthopaedic surgery may also be able to participate in rehabilitation without significant epidural-related changes in gait. It is well documented that early mobilization and rehabilitation following orthopaedic surgery improve healing and shorten hospital stay. However, pain often limits full participation. Epidural analgesia appears to be an appropriate mode of pain relief that, despite somatosensory changes, may allow normal gait. Epidural analgesia in healthy volunteers does not alter lower extremity kinetics or kinematics, suggesting that it may be an effective mode of pain relief that will allow better participation in therapy following orthopaedic surgery. Funding: McCaig Professorship Program Development Fund, Wood Professorship, The Foothills Hospital Obstetric Anesthesia Research Fund, The National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and The University of Calgary Biomedical Engineering Program

Lumbar spinal surgery may be associated with considerable pain in the early postoperative period. This often leads to a delay in patient mobilisation and a consequent increase in the risk of developing perioperative complications. Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of intrathecal opioids for analgesia following spinal surgery. 1. –. 3. Morphine has been the most widely studied opioid and although improved analgesia has been reported with its use the risk of serious side effects such as respiratory depression has resulted in patients having to be nursed postoperatively in a high dependency unit. 2. Intrathecal diamorphine has been widely used for analgesia following lower limb joint replacement where it is an effective analgesic agent with a good safety profile. 4. –. 5. Its use for analgesia following lumbar spinal surgery has never been reported. We present our experience of using intrathecal diamorphine for analgesia following lumbar spinal surgery. Data were collected on all patients undergoing surgery who received intrathecal diamorphine and stored on a database (Microsoft Access). Results: 194 patients received intrathecal diamorphine following spinal surgery over a 30 month period. All patients underwent lower lumbosacral decompressive and/or fusion surgery. Mean dose of diamorphine administered was 1.6mg (range 1–4mg or 20–50mcg/kg). In all cases intrathecal diamorphine was administered by the anaesthetist once the patient was anaesthetised. Only 9% of patients had a pain score of 2 or greater within the first 24 hours (using a verbal rating scale 0–10). No patients required rescue analgesia with intravenous opiates. All patients except one were nursed on a regular orthopaedic ward. Side effects were rare. Respiratory depression occurred in one patient necessitating supplemental oxygen and monitoring in a high dependency unit for 12 hours. Hypotension was an infrequent finding (3.5%) but was most common upon return to the ward and in the following 24 hours. It was easily treated with the administration of intravenous fluids and vasopressors were never required. Sedation occurred in 4 of the patients whilst in the recovery ward but the incidence was nil once patients had been discharged to the orthopaedic ward. The most common complication recorded was pruritis, occurring in 9% of patients within the first 12 hours. Conclusion: Intrathecal diamorphine is an effective and safe method of providing analgesia following lumbar spinal surgery. High Dependency nursing care is not required as the incidence of serious side effects is low

Pain immediately following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often severe and can inhibit patients' rehabilitation. Recently, adductor canal blocks have been shown to provide adequate analgesia and spare quadriceps muscle strength in the early postoperative period. We devised a single injection motor sparing knee block (MSB) by targeting the adductor canal and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve with a posterior knee infiltration under ultrasound. Our primary objective was to evaluate the analgesia duration of the MSB in comparison to a standard periarticular infiltration (PAI) analgesia using patients' first rescue analgesia as the end point. Secondary outcomes measured were quadriceps muscle strength and length of stay. We randomised 82 patients scheduled for elective TKA to receive either the preoperative MSB (0.5% ropivacaine, 2.5ug/ml epinephrine, 10mg morphine, and 30mg ketorolac) or intraoperative periarticular infiltration (0.3% ropivacaine, 2.5ug/ml epinephrine, 10mg morphine, and 30mg ketorolac). Duration of analgesia, postoperative quadriceps power, and length of stay were evaluated postoperatively. Analgesic duration was found to be significantly different between groups. The MSB had a mean duration of 18.06 ± 1.68 hours while the PAI group had a mean duration of 9.25 ± 1.68 hours for a mean difference of 8.8 hours (95% CI 3.98 to 13.62), p<0.01. There were no significant differences between groups in quadriceps muscle strength power at 20 minutes (p=0.91) or 6 hours (p=0.66) after block administration. Length of stay was also not significantly different between the groups (p=0.29). Motor sparing blocks provide longer analgesia than patients receiving periarticular infiltration while not significantly reducing quadriceps muscle strength or increasing length of hospital stay

Dexmedetomidine, an alpha 2 agonist, has been approved for providing sedation in the intensive care unit. Along with sedative properties, it has analgesic activity through its highly selective action on alpha 2 receptors. Recent studies have examined the use of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to prolong the duration of peripheral nerve blocks. Studies showing effectiveness of dexmedetomidine for adductor canal block in knee surgery are small. Also, its effectiveness has not been compared to Epinephrine which is a strong alpha and beta receptor agonist. In a previous study, we showed that motor sparing knee blocks significantly increased the duration of analgesia compared with periarticular knee infiltration using local anesthetic mixture containing Epinephrine following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In this study, we compared two local anesthetic mixtures: one containing Dexmedetomidine and the other Epinephrine for prolongation of motor sparing knee block in primary TKA patients. After local ethics board approval and gaining Notice of Compliance (NOC) from Health Canada for use of Dexmedetomidine perineurally, 70 patients between the ages 18 – 95 of ASA class I to III undergoing unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty were enrolled. Motor sparing knee block − 1) Adductor canal continuous catheter 2) Single shot Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve block 3) Single shot posterior knee infiltration was performed in all patients using 60 ml mixture of 0.5% Ropivacaine, 10 mg Morphine, 30 mg Ketorolac. Patients randomized into the Dexmedetomidine group (D) received, in addition to the mixture, 1mcg/kg Dexmedetomidine and the Epinephrine (E) group received 200mcg in the mixture. The primary outcome was time to first rescue analgesia as a surrogate for duration of analgesia and secondary outcomes were NRS pain scores up to 24 hours and opioid consumption. The time to first rescue analgesia was not significantly different between Epinephrine and dexmedetomidine groups, Mean and SD 18.45 ± 12.98 hours vs 16.63 ± 11.80 hours with a mean difference of 1.82 hours (95% CI −4.54 to 8.18 hours) and p value of 0.57. Pain scores at 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours were comparable between groups. Mean NRS pain scores Epinephrine vs Dexmedetomidine groups were 1.03 vs 0.80 at 4 hours, 1.48 vs 3.03 at 6 hours, 3.97 vs 4.93 at 12 hours, 5.31 vs 6.18 and 6.59 v 6.12 at 24 hours. Opioid consumption was also not statistically significant between both groups at 6, 12 18, 24 hours (p values 0.18, 0.88, 0.09, 0.64 respectively). Dexmedetomidine does not prolong the duration of knee motor sparing blocks when compared to Epinephrine for total knee arthroplasty. Pain scores and opioid consumption was also comparable in both groups. Further studies using higher dose of dexmedetomidine are warranted

Perioperative pain involves both neurogenic and inflammatory mediators. The neurogenic component is produced by the intense stimulation of the surgical procedure itself. However, inflammatory mediators resulting from tissue damage and the release of certain cytokines provoke the inflammatory response. Both the neurogenic and inflammatory elements create central nervous system (CNS) excitability. While conventional pain management responds to pain as it occurs, rather than anticipating it, a more appropriate protocol may involve pre-emptive administration of analgesic medication. By beginning this administration prior to surgery and continuing it throughout the rehabilitation process, CNS pharmacological agents are utilised to achieve the following goals: 1.) decrease the neurogenic component at the wound site; 2.) depress afferent pathways; and 3.) decrease central sensitisation in the spinal column. Our experience with such pre-emptive analgesic clinical trials have included implementation of three different protocols in three groups of patients, Groups A-C. In Group A, a continuous epidural for 72-hours was utilised. A short-term epidural for 2–3 hours, followed by the use of scheduled opioid drugs and the use of anti-inflammatory medications, was used in Group B. Finally, Group C included spinal analgesia with shortacting morphine and the continued use of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps. In all groups, patients were monitored for the return of motor function, respiratory depression, ileus, pain relief, efficacy in analgesia maintenance, and cost. The following trends were observed among the variances: 1.) approximately equal length of stay in all three groups; 2.) decreased motor function in the continuous epidural group (Group A); 3.) increased ileus in the spinal group (Group C); 4.) equal pain relief in all three groups; 5.) high maintenance in the continuous epidural group (Group A); and 6.) decreased cost when continuous epidurals (Group B) were utilised. In conclusion, of the three methodologies implemented, the continuous epidural had a high failure rate (26%). While spinal analgesia is technically easier and less expensive to perform, it has a poorly defined dose response curve and is associated with an increased incidence of ileus. The scheduled opioid medications proved effective. Pre-emptive analgesia not only significantly suppresses pain, it also provides protective sensation. Our recommendation for pre-emptive pain management consists of the use of multi-modal analgesics attacking various sites along the pain pathway, including regional blocks, oral and parental opioids, topical anaesthetics, and ice. However, ongoing study is required to further delineate appropriate protocol, thorough assessment of consequences, and complications associated with all methodologies. Future protocols to be evaluated at this practice include the local injection of bupivacaine hydrochloride prior to wound closure, in addition to assessing the postoperative integration of rofecoxib into the pain management regime