Ahmed Siddiqi1, Yusuf Mahmoud2, Michelle Secic3, John M Tozzi1, Ahmed Emara4, Nicolas S Piuzzi4, Brian Culp5, Ran Schwarzkopf6, Bryan D Springer7, Antonia F Chen8. 1. Orthopedic Institute of Central Jersey, A Division of Ortho Alliance NJ, Manalapan, NJ; Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nutley, NJ; Hackensack Meridian Health, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Neptune, NJ. 2. Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nutley, NJ. 3. Hackensack Meridian Health, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Neptune, NJ. 4. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland, OH. 5. Princeton Orthopedics, Princeton, NJ. 6. New York University Langone Medical Center, Department of Orthopedics, New York, NY. 7. OrthoCarolina Hip and Knee Center, Department of Orthopedics Atrium Musculoskeletal Institute, Charlotte, NC. 8. Brigham and Woman's Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mepivacaine is an intermediate acting amide local anesthetic that can be used for neuraxial anesthesia in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) with a shorter duration of action (1.5-2 hours) compared to the more commonly used local anesthetic bupivacaine. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing bupivacaine and mepivacaine spinal anesthesia during elective TJA and the surgical outcomes of the time to full neurologic motor return, pain, mobility, length of stay (LOS), and complications including transient neurologic symptoms and urinary function. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase were screened for "arthroplasty, spinal anesthesia, bupivacaine, and mepivacaine," in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 159 studies were screened and 5 studies were evaluated. Data were compared regarding motor function return, mobility (distance ambulated), pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), LOS, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Full-text screening yielded 5 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 2 retrospective cohort studies), with a total of 1,550 patients. Mepivacaine spinals had an earlier return to motor function (154 minutes vs 170 minutes, 95% CI: [-31.6, -0.9], P = .04), shorter LOS (25.95 hours vs 29.96 hours, 95% CI: [-6.8, -1.2], P = .01), and decreased urinary retention (7.15% vs 10.58%, 95% CI: [-6.3%, -0.6%], P = .02) with no differences in pain (VAS 3.57 vs 3.68, 95% CI: [-2.1, 1.9], P = .90) or distance ambulated (94.2 ft vs 89.1 ft, 95% CI: [-15, 25.2], P = .60) compared to bupivacaine spinal anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The method of anesthesia administration has been an increasing area of focus for quicker and safer recovery to allow for early ambulation and facility discharge. The rapid recovery facilitated by mepivacaine may further enable outpatient TJA and enhance patient recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
BACKGROUND: Mepivacaine is an intermediate acting amide local anesthetic that can be used for neuraxial anesthesia in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) with a shorter duration of action (1.5-2 hours) compared to the more commonly used local anesthetic bupivacaine. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing bupivacaine and mepivacaine spinal anesthesia during elective TJA and the surgical outcomes of the time to full neurologic motor return, pain, mobility, length of stay (LOS), and complications including transient neurologic symptoms and urinary function. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase were screened for "arthroplasty, spinal anesthesia, bupivacaine, and mepivacaine," in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 159 studies were screened and 5 studies were evaluated. Data were compared regarding motor function return, mobility (distance ambulated), pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), LOS, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Full-text screening yielded 5 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 2 retrospective cohort studies), with a total of 1,550 patients. Mepivacaine spinals had an earlier return to motor function (154 minutes vs 170 minutes, 95% CI: [-31.6, -0.9], P = .04), shorter LOS (25.95 hours vs 29.96 hours, 95% CI: [-6.8, -1.2], P = .01), and decreased urinary retention (7.15% vs 10.58%, 95% CI: [-6.3%, -0.6%], P = .02) with no differences in pain (VAS 3.57 vs 3.68, 95% CI: [-2.1, 1.9], P = .90) or distance ambulated (94.2 ft vs 89.1 ft, 95% CI: [-15, 25.2], P = .60) compared to bupivacaine spinal anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The method of anesthesia administration has been an increasing area of focus for quicker and safer recovery to allow for early ambulation and facility discharge. The rapid recovery facilitated by mepivacaine may further enable outpatient TJA and enhance patient recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.