Background: Postoperative analgesia with the use of parenteral opioids or epidural analgesia can be associated with troublesome side effects. Good perioperative analgesia facilitates rehabilitation, improves patient satisfaction, and may reduce the hospital stay. We investigated the analgesic effect of locally injected drugs around a total knee prosthesis.

Methods: Sixty-four patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty were randomized either to receive a periarticular intraoperative injection containing ropivacaine, ketorolac, epimorphine, and epinephrine or to receive no injection. The perioperative analgesic regimen was standardized. All patients in both groups received patient-controlled analgesia for twenty-four hours after the surgery, and this was followed by standard analgesia. Visual analog scores for pain, during activity and at rest, and for patient satisfaction were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively and at the six-week follow-up examination. The consumption of patient-controlled analgesia at specific postoperative time-points and the overall analgesic requirement were measured.

Results: The patients who had received the injection used significantly less patient-controlled analgesia at six hours, at twelve hours, and over the first twenty-four hours after the surgery. In addition, they had higher visual analog scores for patient satisfaction and lower visual analog scores for pain during activity in the post-anesthetic-care unit and four hours after the operation. No cardiac or central nervous system toxicity was observed.

Conclusions: Intraoperative periarticular injection with multimodal drugs can significantly reduce the requirements for patient-controlled analgesia and improve patient satisfaction, with no apparent risks, following total knee arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Efficacy of periarticular multimodal drug injection in total knee arthroplasty. A randomized trial.

Background: Although numerous methods of postoperative analgesia have been investigated in an attempt to improve pain control after total knee arthroplasty, parenteral narcotics still play a major role in postoperative pain management. Local anesthetics have the advantage of blocking pain conduction at its origin and minimizing the systemic side effects associated with postoperative narcotic use. This study was performed to evaluate the benefits and safety of a multimodal analgesia protocol that included periarticular injection of large doses of local anesthetics in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

Methods: We compared morphine consumption during the first twenty-four hours after unilateral total knee arthroplasty in forty-two patients who had been randomized to receive either (1) a perioperative infiltration mixture, consisting principally of local anesthetic, and self-administered morphine or (2) self-administered morphine only. Narcotics consumption, pain control, medication-related side effects, plasma levels of the local anesthetic (ropivacaine), and postoperative rehabilitation were monitored.

Results: Although there was high satisfaction and good pain control in both groups, morphine consumption was significantly lower in the local analgesia group than it was in the control group (28.8 ± 17.4 mg compared with 50.3 ± 25.4 mg twenty-four hours after surgery, and 46.7 ± 19.4 mg compared with 68.6 ± 38.6 mg forty hours after surgery). Both groups achieved a similar amount of knee flexion on the fifth postoperative day. Over the five-day period after the procedure, the patients in the local analgesia group reported a total of 2.6 ± 3.9 hours of nausea compared with 7.1 ± 12.2 hours in the control group. No complications related to the infiltration of the local anesthetic were observed, and all plasma concentrations of the local anesthetic were below the toxic range.

Conclusions: This multimodal perioperative analgesia protocol that included infiltration of a local anesthetic offered improved pain control and minimal side effects to patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Our study also confirmed the safety of the protocol.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A multimodal analgesia protocol for total knee arthroplasty. A randomized, controlled study.

The PROSPECT Working Group, a collaboration of anaesthetists and surgeons, conducts systematic reviews of postoperative pain management for different surgical procedures (http://www.postoppain.org). Evidence-based consensus recommendations for the effective management of postoperative pain are then developed from these systematic reviews, incorporating clinical practice observations, and transferable evidence from other relevant procedures. We present the results of a systematic review of pain and other outcomes following analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The evidence from this review supports the use of general anaesthesia combined with a femoral nerve block for surgery and postoperative analgesia, or alternatively spinal anaesthesia with local anaesthetic plus spinal morphine. The primary technique, together with cooling and compression techniques, should be supplemented with paracetamol and conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or COX-2-selective inhibitors, plus intravenous strong opioids (high-intensity pain) or weak opioids (moderate- to low-intensity pain).

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05565.x

A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for postoperative analgesia following total knee arthroplasty

Background Hip and knee replacement are common operative procedures to improve mobility and quality of life. Adequate pain relief is essential in the postoperative period to enable ambulation and initiation of physiotherapy. Lumbar epidural analgesia is a common modality for pain relief following these procedures. However, there is no systematic review of the evidence comparing the efficacy of epidural analgesia with other postoperative analgesic modalities. As the use of epidural analgesia may delay the initiation of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis due to the potential risk of epidural hematoma, a synthesis of the evidence is necessary to determine whether or not alternative analgesic modalities are worse, equivalent, or better than epidural analgesia. Objectives Our objective is to answer the question: "Is lumbar epidural analgesia more efficacious than systemic analgesia or long-acting spinal analgesia for postoperative pain relief in patients after elective hip or knee replacement?" Search strategy MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched from their inception to June 2001. Reference lists of review articles and included studies were also reviewed for additional citations. Selection criteria A study was included if it was a randomized or pseudo randomized controlled clinical trial of patients undergoing hip or knee replacement, in which postoperative lumbar epidural analgesia was compared to other methods for pain relief. Study selection was performed unblinded in duplicate. Data collection and analysis Data were collected unblinded in duplicate. Information on the patients, methods, interventions, outcomes (pain relief, postoperative function, length of stay) and adverse events were recorded. Methodological quality was assessed using a validated 5-point scale. Meta-analysis was conducted when sufficient data existed from two or more studies. Heterogeneity testing was performed using the Breslow-Day method. The fixed effects model was used unless heterogeneity was present, in which case, a random effects model was used. Continuous data were summarized as weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous data were summarized as odds ratios (OR) and numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) or numbers-needed-to-harm (NNH) with their respective 95% CI. Graphical representation of continuous data used the MetaView program. Main results In the first four to six hours after surgery, patients receiving epidural analgesia had less pain at rest, based on visual analog scores (VAS), than patients receiving systemic analgesia (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.24 to -0.31). This effect was not statistically significant by 18 to 24 hours (SMD -0.29; 95% CI -0.73 to 0.16). These observations were based only on studies evaluating populations consisting of total knee replacements alone or mixed populations of total hip or total knee replacements. For pain relief with movement after surgery, patients receiving epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores than patients receiving systemic analgesia in all four studies examining these outcomes. The choice of epidural agents may also influence the extent to which epidural analgesia differs from systemic analgesia. The differences between epidural analgesia and systemic analgesia in the frequency of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.49) or depression of breathing (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.54) were not statistically significant. Sedation occurred less frequently with epidural analgesia (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.97) with a number-needed-to-harm of 7.7 (95% CI 3.5 to 42.0) patients for the systemic analgesia group. Retention of urine (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.51; NNH 4.5, 95% CI 2.3 to 12.2), itching (OR 4.74, 95% CI 1.76 to 12.78; NNH 6.8, 95% CI 4.4 to 15.8), and low blood pressure (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.15 to 6.72; NNH 6.7, 95% CI 3.5 to 103) were more frequent with epidural analgesia compared to systemic analgesia. There were insufficient numbers to draw conclusions on the edural analgesia compared to systemic analgesia. There were insufficient numbers to draw conclusions on the effect of epidural analgesia on serious postoperative complications, functional outcomes, or length of hospital stay. Reviewer's conclusions Epidural analgesia may be useful for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb joint replacements. However, the benefits may be limited to the early (four to six hours) postoperative period. An epidural infusion of local anesthetic or local anesthetic-narcotic mixture may be better than epidural narcotic alone. The magnitude of pain relief must be weighed against the frequency of adverse events. The current evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions on the frequency of rare complications from epidural analgesia, postoperative morbidity or mortality, functional outcomes, or length of hospital stay.

Epidural analgesia for pain relief following hip or knee replacement.

We analyze the effects of a multimodal analgesic regimen on postoperative pain, function, adverse effects and satisfaction compared to patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Thirty-six patients undergoing TKA were randomized to receive either (1) periarticular injection before wound closure (30cc 0.5% bupivacaine, 10mg MSO4, 15 mg ketorolac) and multimodal analgesics (oxycodone, tramadol, ketorolac; narcotics as needed) or (2) hydromorphone PCA. Preoperative and postoperative data were collected for VAS pain scores, time to physical therapy milestones, hospital stay length, patient satisfaction, narcotic consumption and medication-related adverse effects. The multimodal group had lower VAS scores, fewer adverse effects, lower narcotic usage, higher satisfaction scores and earlier times to physical therapy milestones. Multimodal pain management protocol decreases narcotic usage, improves pain scores, increases satisfaction and enhances early recovery.

Multimodal pain management in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

The purpose of this study was to determine if intra-articular injection of morphine or bupivacaine significantly decreased postoperative pain as well as the use of intravenous narcotics for pain relief in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In a prospective, double-blind, randomized fashion, 105 patients undergoing TKA were divided into the following 4 groups defined by the intra-articular injection they received: group 1 (n = 27) received saline solution, group 2 (n = 26) received morphine sulfate (5 mg), group 3 (n = 24) received bupivacaine (50 mg), and group 4 (n = 28) received a combination of morphine sulfate and bupivacaine. The injections were administered immediately after wound closure by the Hemovac drainage tubing that remained clamped for 45 minutes after surgery to allow for absorption. Before surgery and at 2, 4, 6, 24, and 48 hours after surgery, pain intensity was recorded using a visual analog scale. Postoperative supplemental intravenous morphine and/or meperidine was administered via a patient-controlled analgesia device, and 24-hour drug usage was tabulated. Results were suggestive of a modest short-term reduction in pain scores in the morphine and bupivacaine treatment groups compared with placebo (saline); however, results were statistically significant only at 4 hours because of the great variability in the pain score data. The total amount of postoperative pain medication used in the first 24 hours after surgery was not statistically significant between the 4 treatment groups. Thus, the results put into question the benefit of postoperative intra-articular administration of morphine or bupivacaine in patients undergoing TKA.

Intra-articular morphine and/or bupivacaine in the management of pain after total knee arthroplasty

A retrospective review of 715 consecutive cases of total joint arthroplasty (283 hips, 432 knees), performed for a variety of indications during 1992 and 1993, was undertaken to assess the cost effectiveness of routine pathologic examination. The charts were reviewed for preoperative, operative, and pathologic diagnosis, and any discrepancies in diagnosis were noted. Particular attention was paid to pathologic findings suggestive of neoplasia or rheumatoid arthritis that were not noted in the preoperative or operative diagnoses. Six of the 715 cases fit into this category, but all failed to have any clinical significance. No alteration in patient care resulted from routine pathologic examination. This paper questions the necessity of routinely submitting pathologic specimens in uncomplicated total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Michael L. Campbell

Papers

Intra-articular morphine and/or bupivacaine in the management of pain after total knee arthroplasty

Collection of surgical specimens in total joint arthroplasty. Is routine pathology cost effective