PURPOSE: The aim of the study reported here was to compare the efficacy and safety of postoperative analgesia provided by interscalene block with multimodal pain control (IB-MPC) versus that provided by multimodal pain control (MPC) aloneafter arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. METHODS:Sixty consecutive patients were assigned to either the IB-MPC group (30 patients) or the MPC group (30 patients). Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores before surgery and through day 5 after surgery, consumption of rescue analgesic, adverse effects and complications were evaluated. RESULTS:Mean VAS pain scores immediately after surgery and on days 1 through 5 after surgery were 3.9 ± 2.6, 4.4 ± 1.5, 3.4 ± 1.3, 2.7 ± 1.3, 2.4 ± 1.2, and 2.0 ± 1.0, respectively, in the IB-MPC group and 6.2 ± 1.8, 4.1 ± 1.7, 3.2 ± 1.9, 2.7 ± 1.4, 2.5 ± 1.3, and 2.0 ± 1.2, respectively, in the MPC group. The IB-MPC group had significantly lower VAS pain score immediately after surgery than the MPC group did (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences regarding consumption of rescue analgesic or adverse effects between the two groups (n.s.). In the IB-MPC group, complications related to interscalene block included tingling of the hand in three patients and numbness of the neck and ear in two. However, these symptoms resolved spontaneously within a few days. No patients had major complications related to interscalene block. CONCLUSIONS:IB-MPC achieved better pain control immediately after surgery than MPC alone, without major complications related to interscalene block. It is an effective and safe method for providing postoperative analgesia after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective Comparative Study, Prognosis Study, Level II.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of the study reported here was to compare the efficacy and safety of postoperative analgesia provided by interscalene block with multimodal pain control (IB-MPC) versus that provided by multimodal pain control (MPC) alone after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients were assigned to either the IB-MPC group (30 patients) or the MPC group (30 patients). Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores before surgery and through day 5 after surgery, consumption of rescue analgesic, adverse effects and complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean VAS pain scores immediately after surgery and on days 1 through 5 after surgery were 3.9 ± 2.6, 4.4 ± 1.5, 3.4 ± 1.3, 2.7 ± 1.3, 2.4 ± 1.2, and 2.0 ± 1.0, respectively, in the IB-MPC group and 6.2 ± 1.8, 4.1 ± 1.7, 3.2 ± 1.9, 2.7 ± 1.4, 2.5 ± 1.3, and 2.0 ± 1.2, respectively, in the MPC group. The IB-MPC group had significantly lower VAS pain score immediately after surgery than the MPC group did (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences regarding consumption of rescue analgesic or adverse effects between the two groups (n.s.). In the IB-MPC group, complications related to interscalene block included tingling of the hand in three patients and numbness of the neck and ear in two. However, these symptoms resolved spontaneously within a few days. No patients had major complications related to interscalene block. CONCLUSIONS:IB-MPC achieved better pain control immediately after surgery than MPC alone, without major complications related to interscalene block. It is an effective and safe method for providing postoperative analgesia after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective Comparative Study, Prognosis Study, Level II.
Authors: Julie Y Bishop; Mark Sprague; Jonathan Gelber; Marina Krol; Meg A Rosenblatt; James Gladstone; Evan L Flatow Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.284