Health-related quality of life after hip arthroplasty with and without an extended-duration continuous posterior lumbar plexus nerve block: a prospective, 1-year follow-up of a randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled study

Acupuncture in the Treatment of a Series of Patients with Chronic Pain Associated with Hip Osteoarthritis

Objective  Hip osteoarthritis (HO) causes pain and deranges functioning. Surgical treatment is the preferred approach in severe cases, but clinical comorbidities, age and the long waiting list may compromise quality of life. This study aimed to describe the results of acupuncture for the control pain and improvement of functioning in subjects with HO. Method  Twelve severe HO patients were treated with ten weekly sessions of a standardized acupuncture point protocol. Pain intensity was assessed with the Visual Analog Pain Scale (VAS) and quality of life with WOMAC Index. Results  Pain intensity (VAS) reduced from 75.8 ± 18.8 mm to 20.0 ± 22.6 mm after 10 acupuncture sessions and 48.3 ± 26.6mm in the follow-up (ANOVA F = 7.99; p < 0.001). WOMAC Index values reduced from 74.7 ± 12.7 to 45.7 ± 22.1 and 54.6 ± 22.9 at the same timepoints. Conclusion  Acupuncture is an effective conservative rehabilitation strategy to reduce pain and improve quality of life in subjects with severe HO.

Greater analgesic effect with intermittent compared with continuous mode of lumbar plexus block for total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

This article has been retracted

Lower extremity regional anesthesia: essentials of our current understanding

The advent of ultrasound guidance has led to a renewed interest in regional anesthesia of the lower limb. In keeping with the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine's ongoing commitment to provide intensive evidence-based education, this article presents a complete update of the 2005 comprehensive review on lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks. The current review article strives to (1) summarize the pertinent anatomy of the lumbar and sacral plexuses, (2) discuss the optimal approaches and techniques for lower limb regional anesthesia, (3) present evidence to guide the selection of pharmacological agents and adjuvants, (4) describe potential complications associated with lower extremity nerve blocks, and (5) identify informational gaps pertaining to outcomes, which warrant further investigation.

Regional analgesia for improvement of long-term functional outcome after elective large joint replacement

BACKGROUND

Regional analgesia is more effective than conventional analgesia for controlling pain and may facilitate rehabilitation after large joint replacement in the short term. It remains unclear if regional anaesthesia improves functional outcomes after joint replacement beyond three months after surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of regional anaesthesia and analgesia on long-term functional outcomes 3, 6 and 12 months after elective major joint (knee, shoulder and hip) replacement surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an electronic search of several databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL), and handsearched reference lists and conference abstracts. We updated our search in June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing regional analgesia versus conventional analgesia in patients undergoing total shoulder, hip or knee replacement. We included studies that reported a functional outcome with a follow-up of at least three months after surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies with 350 participants followed for at least three months. All of these studies enrolled participants undergoing total knee replacement. Studies were at least partially blinded. Three studies had a high risk of performance bias and one a high risk of attrition bias, but the risk of bias was otherwise unclear or low.Only one study assessed joint function using a global score. Due to heterogeneity in outcome and reporting, we could only pool three out of six RCTs, with range of motion assessed at three months after surgery used as a surrogate for joint function. All studies had a high risk of detection bias. Using the random-effects model, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups (mean difference 3.99 degrees, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.23 to 10.21; P value = 0.21, 3 studies, 140 participants, very low quality evidence).We did not perform further analyses because immediate adverse effects were not part of the explicit outcomes of any of these typically small studies, and long-term adverse events after regional anaesthesia are rare.None of the included studies elicited or reported long-term adverse effects like persistent nerve damage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More high-quality studies are needed to establish the effects of regional analgesia on function after major joint replacement, as well as on the risk of adverse events (falls).

Spinal Anaesthesia with Adjunctive Intrathecal Morphine versus Continuous Lumbar Plexus Blockade: A Randomised Comparison for Analgesia after Hip Replacement

Following elective total hip replacement, both continuous lumbar plexus blockade and spinal anaesthesia (with adjunctive intrathecal morphine) have shown early outcome benefits over opioid analgesia and single-injection nerve block. However, the two techniques have not been compared in a prospective randomised manner. Our study examined 50 patients undergoing elective hip joint replacement who were randomised to receive spinal anaesthesia (with adjunctive intrathecal morphine 0.1 mg) or patient-controlled continuous lumbar plexus blockade. All surgery was conducted under general anaesthesia. Measured outcomes included numerically rated postoperative pain, supplemental opioid consumption and indices of mobilisation together with complications. Results show that block placement time was marginally shorter for the spinal group (5 versus 7 minutes, P=0.01). The primary outcome, worst pain on movement/mobilisation during the first 24 hours, was not statistically significantly different between groups. Patients in the lumbar plexus group were given more intraoperative opioid and rescue morphine in the post-anaesthesia care unit (median = 4 versus 0 mg, P <0.001), with correspondingly higher pain scores (median 5/10 versus 0/10, P <0.001). Pain scores during the subsequent 24 hours were similar between groups, but more patients in the spinal group were given rescue morphine (5 versus 0, P=0.02). Physiotherapy mobilisation indices appeared similar between groups. More spinal group patients reported pruritus (12 versus 5, P=0.01), but antiemetic requirements, episodes of disorientation, arterial oxygen desaturation and falls were all similar between groups. Postoperative symptoms suggestive of neurological irritation or injury did not differ between groups. We found that following elective hip joint replacement, compared to continuous lumbar plexus blockade, spinal anaesthesia incorporating adjunctive intrathecal morphine did not result in a statistically significant difference in worst pain on movement/mobilisation during the first 24 hours, although it was associated with better analgesia in the post-anaesthesia care unit. Subsequently, however, these patients appeared to require more rescue morphine and more of them reported pruritus.

The role of continuous peripheral nerve blocks

A continuous peripheral nerve block (cPNB) is provided in the hospital and ambulatory setting. The most common use of CPNBs is in the peri- and postoperative period but different indications have been described like the treatment of chronic pain such as cancer-induced pain, complex regional pain syndrome or phantom limb pain. The documented benefits strongly depend on the analgesia quality and include decreasing baseline/dynamic pain, reducing additional analgesic requirements, decrease of postoperative joint inflammation and inflammatory markers, sleep disturbances and opioid-related side effects, increase of patient satisfaction and ambulation/functioning improvement, an accelerated resumption of passive joint range-of-motion, reducing time until discharge readiness, decrease in blood loss/blood transfusions, potential reduction of the incidence of postsurgical chronic pain and reduction of costs. Evidence deriving from randomized controlled trials suggests that in some situations there are also prolonged benefits of regional anesthesia after catheter removal in addition to the immediate postoperative effects. Unfortunately, there are only few data demonstrating benefits after catheter removal and the evidence of medium- or long-term improvements in health-related quality of life measures is still lacking. This review will give an overview of the advantages and adverse effects of cPNBs.

Economics and practice management issues associated with acute pain management

The use of regional anesthesia (RA) improves cost benefit (hospital-centered) and cost utility (patient-centered) over general anesthesia with volatile agents (GAVA), based upon research in outpatient populations. To make the cost savings a reality, the authors recommend: (1) avoidance of GAVA or at least volatile agents, (2) adopting published postanesthesia care unit (PACU)-bypass criteria conducive to RA, (3) maximizing PACU-bypass rates, and (4) utilizing a block induction area. Inpatient-based acute pain services are not uniform, which makes cost analyses and comparison between practices unreliable. Additional review and commentary address surgical site infections, cancer recurrence, blood transfusions, and chronic postsurgical pain.

Use of invasive placebos in research on local anaesthetic interventions

Placebos play a vital role in clinical research, but their invasive use in the context of local anaesthetic blocks is controversial. We assessed whether recently published randomised controlled trials of local anaesthetic blocks risked harming control group patients in contravention of the Declaration of Helsinki. We developed the 'SHAM' (Serious Harm and Morbidity) scale to assess risk: grade 0 = no risk (no intervention); grade 1 = minimal risk (for example, skin allergy to dressing); grade 2 = minor risk (for example, subcutaneous haematoma, infection); grade 3 = moderate risk (with or without placebo injection) (for example, neuropraxia); and grade 4 = major risk (such as blindness, pneumothorax, or liver laceration). Placebo interventions of the 59 included trials were given a SHAM grade. Nine hundred and nineteen patients in 31 studies, including six studies with 183 children, received an invasive placebo assessed as SHAM grade ≥ 3. A high level of agreement (78%, κ = 0.80, p < 0.001) for SHAM grades 0-4 increased to 100% following discussion between assessors. More than half of the randomised controlled study designs subjected patients in control groups to risks of serious or irreversible harm. A debate on whether it is justifiable to expose control group patients to risks of serious harm is overdue.