Local infiltration analgesia does not have benefits in fast-track hip arthroplasty programmes: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

Efficacy of local infiltration analgesia on recovery after total hip arthroplasty using direct anterior approach under spinal anaesthesia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

The utilization of local infiltration analgesia (LIA) is a common practice in total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures to mitigate postoperative pain and diminish the necessity for opioids. However, contemporary literature reports conflicting results. Our working hypothesis was that LIA renders better postoperative VAS-scores and reduces the need for oral analgetics. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial aimed at examining the effectiveness of LIA in THA. A total of 90 patients were included for statistical analysis. Our primary endpoint was the Visual Analogue Scale, VAS, (0: no pain, 10: unbearable pain) preoperatively, at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 12th hour postoperative intervals and at discharge. Our secondary endpoints included the postoperative opioid consumption, as well as patient satisfaction at 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively, measured using the Numeric Rating Scale, NRS. LIA has a tendency for superior results regarding VAS- Scores at 3 and 4 hours postoperatively. There were no notable statistical distinctions observed in terms of patients necessitating rescue opioid consumption. Patient satisfaction using the NRS at both the 2-week and 6-week postoperatively did not differ significantly between both groups. The administration of LIA could offer advantages during the initial stages of postoperative recovery, which could be particularly valuable in rapid recovery programs.

Key Components, Current Practice and Clinical Outcomes of ERAS Programs in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have led to improvements in outcomes in several surgical fields, through multimodal optimization of patient pathways, reductions in complications, improved patient experiences and reductions in the length of stay. However, their use has not been uniformly recognized in all orthopedic fields, and there is still no consensus on the best implementation process. Here, we evaluated pre-, peri-, and post-operative key elements and clinical evidence of ERAS protocols, measurements, and associated outcomes in patients undergoing different orthopedic surgical procedures. A systematic literature search on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases was conducted to identify clinical studies, from 2012 to 2022. Out of the 1154 studies retrieved, 174 (25 on spine surgery, 4 on thorax surgery, 2 on elbow surgery and 143 on hip and/or knee surgery) were considered eligible for this review. Results showed that ERAS protocols improve the recovery from orthopedic surgery, decreasing the length of hospital stays (LOS) and the readmission rates. Comparative studies between ERAS and non-ERAS protocols also showed improvement in patient pain scores, satisfaction, and range of motion. Although ERAS protocols in orthopedic surgery are safe and effective, future studies focusing on specific ERAS elements, in particular for elbow, thorax and spine, are mandatory to optimize the protocols.