PURPOSE:Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) has attracted growing interest in recent years. To prolong the positive effects of LIA, a continuous intraarticular perfusion has been introduced in total knee arthroplasty with good clinical results. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate if similar results can be obtained with the use of a continuous periarticular perfusion in unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS:50 consecutively selected patients undergoing UKA received either asingle-shot LIA (control group; n = 25) or single-shot LIA combined with a continuous postoperative periarticular perfusion for 2 postoperative days (intervention group, n = 25). VAS (visual analogue scale) for pain, pain medication consumption and range of flexion were recorded postoperatively for 6 days. The catheter was removed after 2 days. RESULTS: Only minor advantages of using a continuous periarticular catheter could be shown. Patients in the intervention group showed significant lower VAS scores on day 1 and required significant less pain medication on day 6. Further, there was a significant difference in the range of flexion on day 3, on which patients of the intervention group were able to bend the knee joint on average by 12° more than patients of the control group. On the other days, any significant differences between the two groups were not observed. CONCLUSION: In summary, the present study could not identify any superiority of a periarticular catheter over single-shot LIA in UKA. Because of additional costs and the potential risk of infection, the conclusion of this study is to not recommend adding a periarticular catheter to the single-shot LIA in UKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) has attracted growing interest in recent years. To prolong the positive effects of LIA, a continuous intraarticular perfusion has been introduced in total knee arthroplasty with good clinical results. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate if similar results can be obtained with the use of a continuous periarticular perfusion in unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: 50 consecutively selected patients undergoing UKA received either a single-shot LIA (control group; n = 25) or single-shot LIA combined with a continuous postoperative periarticular perfusion for 2 postoperative days (intervention group, n = 25). VAS (visual analogue scale) for pain, pain medication consumption and range of flexion were recorded postoperatively for 6 days. The catheter was removed after 2 days. RESULTS: Only minor advantages of using a continuous periarticular catheter could be shown. Patients in the intervention group showed significant lower VAS scores on day 1 and required significant less pain medication on day 6. Further, there was a significant difference in the range of flexion on day 3, on which patients of the intervention group were able to bend the knee joint on average by 12° more than patients of the control group. On the other days, any significant differences between the two groups were not observed. CONCLUSION: In summary, the present study could not identify any superiority of a periarticular catheter over single-shot LIA in UKA. Because of additional costs and the potential risk of infection, the conclusion of this study is to not recommend adding a periarticular catheter to the single-shot LIA in UKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Entities:
Keywords:
LIA; Local infiltration analgesia; Perioperative pain management; Total knee replacement; UKA; Unicondylar knee arthroplasty
Authors: Sietske M K Bakker; Maaike G E Fenten; Daan J Touw; Bart J F van den Bemt; Petra J C Heesterbeek; Gert-Jan Scheffer; Rudolf Stienstra Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 6.288