The Efficacy of Additional Intravenous Patient-controlled Analgesia to the Interscalene Block in Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND: The purpose is to determine the efficacy of additional intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) by comparing the analgesic effects between interscalene block (ISB) combined with IV-PCA and single ISB after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. METHODS: A total of 213 patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder surgery were divided into two groups based on the type of perioperative anesthesia. The single ISB group included 100 patients, while the IV-PCA group included 113 patients. The visual analogue scale for pain (VAS pain) scores were assessed at 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively in accordance with shoulder pathology. Postoperative narcotics-related complications and consumption of additional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: VAS pain showed no significant difference between the two groups at most points of the postoperative timeline, regardless of shoulder pathology, except in patients with rotator cuff repair at postoperative 24 hours. Although the IV-PCA group showed a statistically lower VAS pain score than the ISB group at postoperative 24 hours (p=0.04), the difference in the VAS pain score was only 9.0 mm in patients with rotator cuff repair. Narcotics-related complications were observed more frequently in the IV-PCA group than in the ISB group for patients with rotator cuff repair. CONCLUSIONS: Additional IV-PCA demonstrated no booster effect for immediate pain control in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery with preoperative single ISB. Furthermore, patients with IV-PCA experienced greater narcotics-related complications.

The Efficacy of Additional Intravenous Patient-controlled Analgesia to the Interscalene Block in Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND: The purpose is to determine the efficacy of additional intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) by comparing the analgesic effects between interscalene block (ISB) combined with IV-PCA and single ISB after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. METHODS: A total of 213 patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder surgery were divided into two groups based on the type of perioperative anesthesia. The single ISB group included 100 patients, while the IV-PCA group included 113 patients. The visual analogue scale for pain (VAS pain) scores were assessed at 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively in accordance with shoulder pathology. Postoperative narcotics-related complications and consumption of additional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: VAS pain showed no significant difference between the two groups at most points of the postoperative timeline, regardless of shoulder pathology, except in patients with rotator cuff repair at postoperative 24 hours. Although the IV-PCA group showed a statistically lower VAS pain score than the ISB group at postoperative 24 hours (p=0.04), the difference in the VAS pain score was only 9.0 mm in patients with rotator cuff repair. Narcotics-related complications were observed more frequently in the IV-PCA group than in the ISB group for patients with rotator cuff repair. CONCLUSIONS: Additional IV-PCA demonstrated no booster effect for immediate pain control in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery with preoperative single ISB. Furthermore, patients with IV-PCA experienced greater narcotics-related complications.

Simple Method of Evaluating the Range of Shoulder Motion Using Body Parts

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to assess the range of shoulder motion using an indirect evaluation method without physical examinations of patients based on questionnaires regarding several specific arm postures referenced by patient's own body parts. METHODS: Nine criteria of specific shoulder motion including 4 forward flexion, 2 external rotation, and 3 internal rotation were decided as reference position which can represent a certain shoulder motion. Flexion contains postures such as lifting arm to waist-height, shoulder-height, eye-height, and raising arm above head with arm touching ears. External rotation comprises grasping ears and placing hands on back of the head. Vertebral height in internal rotation is determined by calculating the samples' motions, which are holding on to trouser belts, opposite-elbow, and scapula. These postures are included in questionnaires for patients to evaluate the validity and effectiveness of this indirect method. RESULTS: The range of flexion was 77degrees (60degrees to 100degrees), 96degrees (87degrees to 115degrees), 135degrees (115degrees to 150degrees), and 167degrees (150degrees to 175degrees) when arms go up to waist, shoulder, eye, and high vertically. Range of external rotation was 39.6degrees (30degrees to 50degrees) when grasping ears and 69.2degrees (60degrees to 80degrees) with the hands on the back of the head. Range of internal rotation was L4 when placing trouser belts, T12 for holding opposite elbow, and T9 for reaching scapula. The mismatch rates of flexion, external rotation, and internal rotation were 11.6%, 9.6%, and 7.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The range of shoulder motion using this method is expected to be applied to an established shoulder scoring system which included shoulder motion evaluation item.

Simple Method of Evaluating the Range of Shoulder Motion Using Body Parts

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to assess the range of shoulder motion using an indirect evaluation method without physical examinations of patients based on questionnaires regarding several specific arm postures referenced by patient's own body parts. METHODS: Nine criteria of specific shoulder motion including 4 forward flexion, 2 external rotation, and 3 internal rotation were decided as reference position which can represent a certain shoulder motion. Flexion contains postures such as lifting arm to waist-height, shoulder-height, eye-height, and raising arm above head with arm touching ears. External rotation comprises grasping ears and placing hands on back of the head. Vertebral height in internal rotation is determined by calculating the samples' motions, which are holding on to trouser belts, opposite-elbow, and scapula. These postures are included in questionnaires for patients to evaluate the validity and effectiveness of this indirect method. RESULTS: The range of flexion was 77degrees (60degrees to 100degrees), 96degrees (87degrees to 115degrees), 135degrees (115degrees to 150degrees), and 167degrees (150degrees to 175degrees) when arms go up to waist, shoulder, eye, and high vertically. Range of external rotation was 39.6degrees (30degrees to 50degrees) when grasping ears and 69.2degrees (60degrees to 80degrees) with the hands on the back of the head. Range of internal rotation was L4 when placing trouser belts, T12 for holding opposite elbow, and T9 for reaching scapula. The mismatch rates of flexion, external rotation, and internal rotation were 11.6%, 9.6%, and 7.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The range of shoulder motion using this method is expected to be applied to an established shoulder scoring system which included shoulder motion evaluation item.