Efthimios Samoladas1, Arion Kapinas2, Dimitrios V Papadopoulos3, Ioannis Gkiatas3, Sotirios Papastefanou4, Ioannis D Gelalis3. 1. 2nd Department of Orthopedics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Interbalkan Medical Center, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2. Queens Medical Center, Nottingham, England, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Οrthopedics, University Hospital of Ioannina, Stavros Niarchos Avenue, 45500, Ioannina, Greece. 4. Athens Medical Center, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management following lumbar discectomy is a key part of the procedure and various postoperative pain protocols including a wide range of agents are being used in daily practice worldwide. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of intraoperative epidural infiltration of local anaesthetic and steroid compared with placebo (normal saline) following microscopic lumbar discectomy. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing lumbar discectomy were randomized to intraoperative infiltration of 3 mg betamethoasone acetate and 18 mg ropivacaine (Group A) or normal saline (Group B). Infiltration was performed after discectomy and decompression and immediately prior to incision closure. Postoperatively a standard protocol of intravenous acetaminophen administration and physiotherapy was followed. Additional analgesia with tramadol was given only in patients who required further pain management. Postoperative pain was evaluated using VAS score. Opioid consumption was recorded. Primary outcome measures included immediate postoperative back pain VAS score, opioid consumption and infection rate. Patients were reviewed in clinic at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: None of the patients in Group A required further analgesia while 12 Group B patients required further treatment with tramadol (p = 0.01). At 3 h postoperatively the VAS score was significantly lower in Group A compared to Group B (p < 0.05). Fifty-seven patients completed the 1 year follow up (95%) and 2 patients (1 from each group) suffered a complication of postoperative radiculopathy. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative application of steroid and local anaesthetic agent is effective on pain reduction for only a short period after surgery, while there is no effect on infection rate or any other long-term outcome compared with placebo. Hence although it is a safe technique, its benefits are limited from the duration of action.
BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management following lumbar discectomy is a key part of the procedure and various postoperative pain protocols including a wide range of agents are being used in daily practice worldwide. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of intraoperative epidural infiltration of local anaesthetic and steroid compared with placebo (normal saline) following microscopic lumbar discectomy. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing lumbar discectomy were randomized to intraoperative infiltration of 3 mg betamethoasone acetate and 18 mg ropivacaine (Group A) or normal saline (Group B). Infiltration was performed after discectomy and decompression and immediately prior to incision closure. Postoperatively a standard protocol of intravenous acetaminophen administration and physiotherapy was followed. Additional analgesia with tramadol was given only in patients who required further pain management. Postoperative pain was evaluated using VAS score. Opioid consumption was recorded. Primary outcome measures included immediate postoperative back pain VAS score, opioid consumption and infection rate. Patients were reviewed in clinic at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: None of the patients in Group A required further analgesia while 12 Group B patients required further treatment with tramadol (p = 0.01). At 3 h postoperatively the VAS score was significantly lower in Group A compared to Group B (p < 0.05). Fifty-seven patients completed the 1 year follow up (95%) and 2 patients (1 from each group) suffered a complication of postoperative radiculopathy. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative application of steroid and local anaesthetic agent is effective on pain reduction for only a short period after surgery, while there is no effect on infection rate or any other long-term outcome compared with placebo. Hence although it is a safe technique, its benefits are limited from the duration of action.