Continuous spinal anaesthesia or continuous epidural anaesthesia for post-operative pain control after hip replacement?

Antiemesis after total joint arthroplasty: does a single preoperative dose of aprepitant reduce nausea and vomiting?

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is frequent after joint arthroplasty; in addition to causing patient distress, it interferes with early mobilization and hospital discharge. Various antiemetic agents reduce PONV, but their action is limited by a short half-life. Aprepitant, an antiemetic developed for patients receiving chemotherapy, has a duration of action much longer than other antiemetics.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked whether a single dose of preoperative aprepitant (40 mg orally) reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting after THA or TKA.

METHODS

Fifty patients who received a preoperative dose of aprepitant (study group) were matched demographically to 50 patients who did not receive aprepitant (control group) from a group of patients undergoing THA or TKA. Patients' charts were reviewed to identify episodes of PONV, number of doses of antiemetics needed for breakthrough PONV, and length of stay. Aprepitant side effects, and complications.

RESULTS

Aprepitant reduced the percentage of patients with PONV (39% of study and 70% of control patients). Moderate or severe PONV occurred in 22% of study and 40% of control patients. The number of episodes of PONV during hospitalization was 2.9 for the control group and 1.6 for the study group. Postoperatively, the control group required on average 1.3 doses of ondansetron compared with 0.6 doses for the study group. Hospital length of stay was reduced from 3.3 days for the control group and to 2.3 days for the study group.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest a single preoperative dose of aprepitant reduces the number of episodes and severity of PONV, the need for additional antiemetics, and the length of stay.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prognostic study. See guidelines for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Efficacy of multimodal pain control protocol in the setting of total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the benefits and safety of a multimodal pain control protocol, which included a periarticular injection of local anesthetics, in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

Between March 2006 and March 2007, 60 patients undergoing unilateral total hip arthroplasty were randomized to undergo either a multimodal pain control protocol or a conventional pain control protocol. The following parameters were compared: the preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scales (VAS), hospital stay, operative time, postoperative rehabilitation, additional painkiller consumption, and complication rates.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the groups in terms of diagnosis, age, gender, and BMI. Although both groups had similar VAS scores in the preoperative period and on the fifth postoperative day, there was a significant difference between the groups over the four-day period after surgery. There were no differences in the hospital stay, operative time, additional painkiller consumption, or complication rate between the groups. The average time for comfortable crutch ambulation was 2.8 days in the multimodal pain control protocol group and 5.3 days in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The multimodal pain control protocol can significantly reduce the level of postoperative pain and improve patients' satisfaction, with no apparent risks, after total hip arthroplasty.

[Pain therapy for the lower extremities]

Pain therapy after surgical procedures of the lower extremity is an important goal, whereas insufficient analgesia leads to an essential reduction of the patient's mobility and convalescence. If possible, regional anaesthetic and intrathecal procedures for pre-, intra- and postoperative analgesia should be used. Systemic analgesics should not be used preoperatively, whereas non-opioids and opioids are recommended postoperatively. Surgical options that adequately reduce pain are intra-articular injection of local anaesthetics alone or in combination with opioids and cooling and physiotherapeutic treatment regimens after joint procedures. There is no scientific rationale as an argument for inserting drains. The surgical approach depends more on the individual patient's anatomical characteristics. Whereas the regional analgesic regimen is more effective than systemic therapy, sufficient tools for pain reduction during surgical procedures of the lower extremity are at the orthopaedic surgeon's disposal, too.

Effect of anesthesia type on limb length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty

A retrospective study of 132 patients (63 spinal anesthesia and 69 general anesthesia) undergoing total hip arthroplasty was performed by 4 fellowship-trained adult reconstructive surgeons to determine the influence of anesthesia type on postoperative limb length and medial offset. Limb length discrepancy occurred in 87.0% of patients who received regional anesthesia as opposed to 47.6% patients who had general anesthesia (P<.001). Differences in postoperative medial offset measurements between the 2 groups were not statistically significant. It was concluded that surgeons operating on patients who receive regional anesthesia should supplement intraoperative tests for assessing hip stability with meticulous preoperative templating to avoid overlengthening the operative limb.

Spinal anaesthesia with a micro-catheter in high-risk patients undergoing colorectal cancer and other major abdominal surgery

Extended spinal anaesthesia using a spinal micro-catheter was used as a primary method of anaesthesia for elective colorectal cancer surgery in 68 high risk patients over a 14-year period in our institution. The technique was also useful in eight elective and 13 emergency abdominal surgeries. All patients suffered from severe chronic obstructive airway disease requiring multiple inhalers and drugs (ASA III). Thirty nine of these patients also suffered from angina, myocardial infarction, diabetes and other systemic diseases (ASA IV). Surgery included right hemicolectomy, left hemicolectomy, total colectomy, sigmoid colectomy, Hartman's resection, anterior resection of rectum, abdominoperineal resection, cholecystectomy (open and laparoscopic) and obstructed inguinal hernia requiring laparotomy. Spinal anaesthesia was performed under strict aseptic conditions with a 22 gauge spinal needle with a mixture consisting of 2.75ml of 0.5% heavy bupivacaine and 0.25ml of fentanyl (25microg). This was followed by placement of a spinal micro-catheter and the duration of anaesthesia was extended by intermittent injection of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine. Brief hypotension occurred in 12.4% of patients during the establishment of anaesthetic block height to T6-7 and was duly treated with intravenous administration of fluid and ephedrine hydrochloride. Good anaesthesia resulted in all patients except for brief discomfort in some patients during hemicolectomy surgery possibly due to the dissection and traction on the peritoneum causing irritation to the diaphragm. The use of sedation was avoided. General anaesthesia was administered in one patient and this patient required postoperative ventilation and cardiovascular support in the Intensive Care Unit. The spinal micro-catheter was removed at the end of surgery. Postoperative pain relief was obtained by administering intravenous morphine through a patient controlled analgesia machine in the critical care ward area (High Dependency Unit). There was a low incidence of minor postoperative side effects such as nausea (14.6%), vomiting (7.9%), minor post dural puncture headache (5.6%) and pruritus (5.6%). We conclude that spinal anaesthesia with a micro-catheter may be used as a primary method of anaesthesia for colorectal cancer surgery and other major abdominal surgery in high-risk patients for whom general anaesthesia would be associated with higher morbidity and mortality.

A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for analgesia after total hip replacement

Total hip replacement is a major surgical procedure usually associated with significant pain in the early postoperative period. Several anaesthetic and analgesic techniques are in common clinical use for this procedure but, to date, clinical studies of pain after total hip replacement have not been systematically assessed. Using the Cochrane protocol, we have conducted a systematic review of analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions affecting postoperative pain after total hip replacement. In addition to the review, transferable evidence from other relevant procedures and clinical practice observations collated by the Delphi method were used to develop evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of postoperative pain. For primary total hip replacement, PROSPECT recommends either general anaesthesia combined with a peripheral nerve block that is continued after surgery or an intrathecal (spinal) injection of local anaesthetic and opioid. The primary analgesic technique should be combined with a step-down approach using paracetamol plus conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with strong or weak opioids as required.

Continuous spinal anaesthesia: what's new and what's not

Continuous spinal anaesthesia combines the advantages of single-dose spinal anaesthesia, rapid onset and a high degree of success, with those of a continuous technique. The introduction of micro-catheters invigorated interest in the technique and allowed its expansion to additional populations and surgical procedures. However, multiple cases of cauda equina syndrome associated with micro-catheters and (primarily) hyperbaric lidocaine solution led to withdrawal of micro-catheters from the US market, casting doubt over the safety of continuous spinal anaesthesia as a whole. A decade after these events it is possible to look back at the experience with continuous spinal anaesthesia for operative anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia and to compare it with the available alternatives. From this perspective, continuous spinal anaesthesia remains a useful and safe technique. Future research should focus on the comparison of continuous spinal anaesthesia with the combined spinal/epidural technique and the use of newer spinal agents.

Epidural analgesia for pain relief following hip or knee replacement

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.