Nalbuphine versus morphine: an adjuvant to spinal anesthesia for controlling pain after total knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nalbuphine, a synthetic k-agonist and µ-antagonist, provides efficient pain relief while reducing opioid-related adverse effects. This study aims to compare the efficacy of intrathecal nalbuphine (ITN) with intrathecal morphine (ITM) for post-TKA pain. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of 131 patients who underwent TKA with spinal anesthesia (SA), a single shot of adductor canal block, and periarticular injections was conducted. The patients were divided into 2 groups, Group N received 0.8 mg nalbuphine, and Group M received 0.2 mg morphine as an adjuvant to SA. Propensity-score matching was employed to compare the visual analog scales (VAS) of postoperative pain intensity, cumulative morphine use (CMU), maximum knee flexion angle, straight leg raise (SLR) ability, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and length of hospital stay (LHS). RESULTS: The mean VAS of group M were significantly lower than group N at 6, 12, 18, and 24 h (P < 0.01). Group M had lower CMU than group N at 24 h (P < 0.01) and 48 h (P < 0.01), while there was no significant difference between groups in terms of knee flexion angle and SLR at any time point. Additionally, 29.3 and 57.9% of patients in group N and M experienced PONV, respectively (p = 0.04), and group N had significantly shorter LHS compared to group M (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although, intrathecal morphine (ITM) still provides better pain control particularly in the first 24 h, patients who received intrathecal nalbuphine (ITN) had significantly fewer incidence of PONV, and shorter LHS.

Effect of multiple analgesic pathways including local infiltration analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks, and intrathecal morphine for controlling pain after total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: We questioned whether the triple analgesic pathways procedure via local infiltration analgesia (LIA), peripheral nerve blocks, and intrathecal morphine (ITM) is superior to LIA only for controlling pain after Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: This retrospective study included 192 primary TKA patients. Group A (76 patients) received LIA only, Group B (61 patients) had ITM, adductor canal block and LIA, while Group C (55 patients) received ITM, femoral nerve block and LIA. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare visual analog scales (VAS) for pain intensity, total amount of morphine consumption (TMC), angle of knee flexion, and length of hospital stay (LHS). RESULTS: Group A showed significantly higher VAS than Group B at 12 h (4.27 ± 2.70 vs 2.42 ± 2.35) and 18 h (4.24 ± 2.35 vs 2.18 ± 2.02), and significantly higher than Group C at 6 h (3.46 ± 3.07 vs 0.60 ± 1.50), 12 h (4.27 ± 2.70 vs 0.89 ± 1.48), and 18 h postoperative (4.24 ± 2.35 vs 1.82 ± 2.18). However, the VAS of Group C and B converged to equalize with Group A after 12 and 18 h, respectively. The TMC at 48 h postoperative of Group A was higher than that of Group B (p < 0.01). Nevertheless, there was no difference between groups in terms of knee flexion and LHS, except the LHS of Group B was longer than Group A (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Triple analgesic pathways could provide a better initial analgesic profile. However, the pain seems to be rebound after resolution of nerve block and ITM, with potentially longer LHS.

Adductor Canal Block Combined with Interspace between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Knee (iPACK) versus Periarticular Injection for Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Background: The combination of the adductor canal block (ACB) and the infiltration of anesthetic solution into the interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the knee (iPACK) has become increasingly used to augment rapid recovery protocols in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, its efficacy in comparison with periarticular anesthetic injection (PAI) alone has yet to be evaluated. Hence, we conducted a retrospective study to compare PAI and ACB + iPACK for controlling pain after TKA. Methods: Propensity scores, incorporating American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, body mass index, age, and sex, were used to match the ACB + iPACK group with the PAI group. All patients received the identical surgical technique and postoperative care. Outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, morphine consumption, knee flexion angle, straight leg raising (SLR), postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV), and length of stay (LOS) after the surgery. Results: After matching by propensity score, there were 49 patients with comparable demographic data in each group. The VAS and morphine requirements of the PAI and ACB + iPACK groups were not different during the first 48 hours after TKA. At 72 hours postoperatively, the VAS of the ACB + iPACK was 0.97 higher than that of the PAI group (p = 0.020). Knee flexion angle, SLR, PONV, and LOS were not significantly different between groups. No procedure-related complications were identified in either group. Conclusions: The anesthesiologist-administered ACB + iPACK was as effective as surgeon-administered PAI in controlling pain in the first 48 hours after TKA. However, the ACB + iPACK group had higher intensity of pain than did the PAI group at 72 hours after TKA.

Additional Peripheral Nerve Block to Periarticular Injection Has No Benefit for Patients Undergoing TKA: A Factorial Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Four Multimodal Analgesic Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Controversy remains over what and how many analgesic techniques are required as the most effective multimodal pain regimen in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of additional analgesic methods combined with periarticular injection (PAI) analgesia for TKA. METHODS: Using retrospective cohort data, patients undergoing TKA with spinal anesthesia and PAI were divided into 4 groups. Group A (control) comprised 66 patients; group B (73 patients) had additional adductor canal block; group C (70 patients) obtained additional femoral nerve block, and group D (73 patients) received additional adductor canal block and intrathecal morphine. Propensity score matching was applied to compare visual analog scale (VAS) for pain intensity, cumulative morphine use (CMU), knee flexion angle, straight leg raise, length of hospital stay, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: There was no significant difference regarding VAS and morphine use, when either group B or C was compared with group A. Group D had significantly lower VAS than groups A, B, and C during the first 24 hours after surgery and required significantly less CMU than groups A and B. However, the pain score of group D increased afterward, with significantly longer length of hospital stay than groups A and B. There was no difference in straight leg raise among the groups. CONCLUSION: Additional peripheral nerve block to PAI provides no benefit for patients undergoing TKA. Adjuvant intrathecal morphine could significantly reduce the VAS and CMU in the acute postoperative period; however, rebound pain with prolonged hospital stays was observed.

The Thai Anesthesia Incident Monitoring study (Thai AIMS): perioperative arrhythmia.

BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Anesthesiologists of Thailand organized the first national sentinel incident reports of anesthesia related adverse events in 2007 on an anonymous and voluntary basis. The aims of the present study were to analyze incidence, risk factors, clinical course and outcome of perioperative arrhythmia and indicate the contributing factors and suggested corrective strategies in the database of the Thai Anesthesia Incidents Monitoring Study (Thai AIMS). MATERIAL AND METHOD: This study was a prospective descriptive multicentered study conducted between January 2007 and June 2007. Data was collected from 51 hospitals across Thailand. All cases whose arrhythmia was detected intra-operatively and within 24 hr postoperative period were analyzed by 3 independents anesthesiologists. Any disagreements were discussed to achieve a consensus. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-nine cases were enrolled as relevant arrhythmia cases. Bradycardia was the most common type (434 cases; 88.8%). Most of all events occurred intra-operatively (94.7%) and electrocardiography was the most common firstly detected monitoring equipment (95.5%). Arrhythmia occurred frequently in patients with hypertension and pre-operative heart rate < 60 beat per min. Intravenous anesthetics, central neural blockage and vagal reflex were considered to be the 3 most common suspected causes of arrhythmia requiring treatment. Most common outcomes were minor physiologic change with complete recovery physiologic change with complete recovery while 7% of incidents developed fatal outcome. The most common contributing factor was human factor (72.4%) especially in experience. An experienced anesthetic team with high awareness could be the minimizing factors. CONCLUSION: Arrhythmia accounted for 19.2% of 2,537 incidents of the Thai AIMS database. Bradycardia was the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia. Most arrhythmia was benign but might be fatal. Suggested corrective strategies such as guidelines practice, improvement of supervision and quality assurance activity.

The Thai anesthesia incident monitoring study (Thai AIMS): an analysis of perioperative myocardial ischemia/infarction.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the clinical course, outcome, contributing factors and factors minimizing the incidents of perioperative myocardial ischemia or infarction (PMI) from Thai AIMS study. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The present study was a prospective multicenter study. Data was collected from 51 hospitals in Thailand during a six-month period. The participating anesthesia provider completed the standardized incident report form of the Thai AIMS as soon as they found the PMI incident. Each incident was reviewed by three peer reviewers for clinical courses, contributing factors, outcome and minimizing factors of PMI. RESULTS: From the Thai AIMS incident report, the authors found 25 suspected PMI cases which was 0.9% of the 2,669 incidents reported in the present study. Most of the PMI occurred in elective cases (84%) and orthopedic procedures (56%). The majority of PMI was reported from the patients undergoing general anesthesia (72%). Suspected PMI occurred mostly during operations (56%). New ST-T segment change was detected in 92% of these patients. The most common immediate outcome of PMI was major physiological change (88%). The most common management effect of PMI was unplanned ICU admission (64%); the others were prolonged ventilatory support (12%) and prolonged hospital stay (16%). Four patients (16%) died after the suspected PMI. Most of the events occurred spontaneously and were unpreventable (80%). Patient factors (100%), anesthesia factors (72%), surgical factors (32%) and system factors (8%) were all judged as a precipitating factor for PMI. Human factors were the most common contributing factors which included poor preoperative evaluation, inexperience and improper decision. The three most common factors minimizing the adverse incidents included prior experienced, high awareness and experienced assistance. The recommended corrective strategies were guideline practice, quality assurance activity, improvement of supervision and additional training. CONCLUSION: Perioperative myocardial ischemia/infarction was infrequent but may be lethal. Patient factors were the most common precipitating cause. The morbidity and mortality could be reduced by high quality preoperative evaluation and preparation, early detection and appropriate treatment. Guideline practice, quality assurance activity, improvement of supervision and additional training were suggested corrective strategies.