ABSTRACT
Background@#Long-term and sustainable clinical practice changes in anesthesia procedures have not previously been reported. Therefore, we performed a 5-year audit following implementation of a clinical pathway change favoring spinal anesthesia for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We similarly evaluated a parallel cohort of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), who did not undergo a clinical pathway change, and studied utilization rates of continuous peripheral nerve block (CPNB). @*Methods@#We identified all primary unilateral TKA and THA cases completed from January 2013 through December 2018, thereby including clinical pathway change data from one-year pre-implementation to 5-years post-implementation. Our primary outcome was the overall application rate of spinal anesthesia. Secondary outcomes included CPNB utilization rate, 30-day postoperative complications, and resource utilization variables such as hospital readmission, emergency department visits, and blood transfusions. @*Results@#The sample included 1,859 cases, consisting of 1,250 TKAs and 609 THAs. During the initial year post-implementation, 174/221 (78.7%) TKAs received spinal anesthesia compared to 23/186 (12.4%) cases the year before implementation (P < 0.001). During the following 4-year period, 647/843 (77.2%) TKAs received spinal anesthesia (P = 0.532 vs. year 1). The number of THA cases receiving spinal anesthesia the year after implementation was 78/124 (62.9%), compared to 48/116 (41.4%) pre-implementation (P = 0.001); however, the rate decreased over the following 4-year period to 193/369 (52.3%) (P = 0.040 vs. year 1). CPNB use was high in both groups, and there were no differences in 30-day postoperative complications, hospital readmission, emergency department visits, or blood transfusions. @*Conclusions@#A clinical pathway change promoting spinal anesthesia for TKA can be effectively implemented and sustained over a 5-year period.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Infiltration between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Knee (IPACK) block is a new anesthesiologist- administered analgesic technique for controlling posterior knee pain that has not yet been well studied in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. We compared pain outcomes in TKA patients before and after implementation of the IPACK with the hypothesis that patients receiving IPACK blocks will report lower pain scores on postoperative day (POD) 0 than non-IPACK patients. METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively reviewed data for consecutive TKA patients by a single surgeon 4 months before (PRE) and after (POST) IPACK implementation. All TKA patients received adductor canal catheters and peri-operative multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was pain on POD 0. Other outcomes were daily pain scores, opioid consumption, ambulation distance, length of stay, and adverse events within 30 days. RESULTS: Post-implementation, 48/50 (96%) of TKA patients received an IPACK block, and they were compared with 32 patients in the PRE group. On POD 0, the lowest pain score (median [10th–90th percentiles]) was significantly lower for the POST group compared to the PRE group (0 [0–4.3] vs. 2.5 [0–7]; P = 0.003). The highest patient-reported pain scores on any POD were similar between groups with no differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Within a multimodal analgesic protocol, addition of IPACK blocks decreased the lowest pain scores on POD 0. Although other outcomes were unchanged, there may be a role for new opioid-sparing analgesic techniques, and changing clinical practice change can occur rapidly.
Subject(s)
Humans , Analgesia , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Catheters , Ethics Committees, Research , Knee , Length of Stay , Popliteal Artery , Retrospective Studies , WalkingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND@#The Infiltration between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Knee (IPACK) block is a new anesthesiologist- administered analgesic technique for controlling posterior knee pain that has not yet been well studied in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. We compared pain outcomes in TKA patients before and after implementation of the IPACK with the hypothesis that patients receiving IPACK blocks will report lower pain scores on postoperative day (POD) 0 than non-IPACK patients.@*METHODS@#With Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively reviewed data for consecutive TKA patients by a single surgeon 4 months before (PRE) and after (POST) IPACK implementation. All TKA patients received adductor canal catheters and peri-operative multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was pain on POD 0. Other outcomes were daily pain scores, opioid consumption, ambulation distance, length of stay, and adverse events within 30 days.@*RESULTS@#Post-implementation, 48/50 (96%) of TKA patients received an IPACK block, and they were compared with 32 patients in the PRE group. On POD 0, the lowest pain score (median [10th–90th percentiles]) was significantly lower for the POST group compared to the PRE group (0 [0–4.3] vs. 2.5 [0–7]; P = 0.003). The highest patient-reported pain scores on any POD were similar between groups with no differences in other outcomes.@*CONCLUSIONS@#Within a multimodal analgesic protocol, addition of IPACK blocks decreased the lowest pain scores on POD 0. Although other outcomes were unchanged, there may be a role for new opioid-sparing analgesic techniques, and changing clinical practice change can occur rapidly.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) distraction is a nonpharmacological method to prevent acute pain that has not yet been thoroughly explored for anesthesiology. We present our experience using VR distraction to decrease routine intravenous sedation for patients undergoing preoperative perineural catheter insertion. METHODS: This 1-month quality improvement project involved all elective unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty patients who received a preoperative adductor canal catheter. Clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. For the first half of the month, all patients received usual care; intravenous sedation was administered at the discretion of the regional anesthesiologist. For the second half of the month, patients were offered VR distraction with intravenous sedation upon request. The primary outcome was fentanyl dosage; other outcomes included midazolam dosage, procedure-related pain, procedural time, and blood pressure changes. RESULTS: Seven patients received usual care and seven used VR. In the VR group, 1/7 received intravenous sedation versus 6/7 who received usual care (P = 0.029). The fentanyl dose was lower (median [10th–90th percentiles]) in the VR group (0 [0–20] µg) versus the non-VR group (50 [30–100] µg; P = 0.008). Midazolam use was lower in the VR group (0 [0–0] mg) than in the non-VR group (1 [0–1] mg; P = 0.024). Procedure-related pain was lower in the VR group (1 [1–4] NRS) versus the non-VR group (3 [2–6] NRS; P = 0.032). There was no difference in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: VR distraction may provide an effective nonpharmacological alternative to intravenous sedation for the ultrasound-guided placement of certain perineural catheters.