What Pain Levels Do TSA Patients Experience When Given a Long-acting Nerve Block and Multimodal Analgesia?

BACKGROUND: The pain experience for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) patients in the first 2 weeks after surgery has not been well described. Many approaches to pain management have been used, with none emerging as clearly superior; it is important that any approach minimizes postoperative opioid use. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) With a long-acting nerve block and comprehensive multimodal analgesia, what are the pain levels after TSA from day of surgery until postoperative day (POD) 14? (2) How many opioids do TSA patients take from the day of surgery until POD 14? (3) What are the PainOUT responses at POD 1 and POD 14, focusing on side effects from opioids usage? METHODS: From January 27, 2017 to December 6, 2017, 154 TSA patients were identified as potentially eligible for this prospective, institutional review board-approved observational study. Of those, 46 patients (30%) were excluded (either because they were deemed not appropriate for the study, research staff were not available, patients were not eligible, or they declined to participate), and another six (4%) had incomplete followup data and could not be studied, leaving 102 patients (66%) for analysis here. Median preoperative pain with movement was 7 (interquartile range [IQR], 5-9) and 13 of 102 patients used preoperative opioids. All patients received a single-injection bupivacaine interscalene block with adjuvant clonidine, dexamethasone, and buprenorphine. Multimodal analgesia included acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and opioids. The primary outcome was the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score with movement on POD 14. The NRS pain score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain possible). Secondary outcomes included NRS pain scores at rest and with movement (day of surgery, and PODs 1, 3, 7 and 14), daily analgesic use from day of surgery to POD 14 (both oral and intravenous), Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (which assesses 12 symptoms ranging from 0 to 4, with 4 being the most distressing; the composite score is the mean of the 12 symptom-specific scores) on POD 1, and the PainOut questionnaire on POD 1 and POD 14. The PainOut questionnaire includes questions rating nausea, drowsiness, itching from 0 (none) to 10 (severe), as well as rating difficulty staying asleep from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes). RESULTS: The median NRS pain scores with movement were 2 (IQR, 0-5) on POD 1, 5 (IQR, 3-6) on POD 3, and the pain score was 3 (IQR, 1-5) on POD 14. Median total opioid use (converted to oral morphine equivalents) was 16 mg (4-50 mg) for the first 24 hours, 30 mg (8-63 mg) for the third, and 0 mg (0-20 mg) by the eighth 24-hour period, while the most frequent number of activations of the intravenous patient-controlled analgesia device was 0. Median PainOut scores on POD 1 and POD 14 for sleep interference, nausea, drowsiness and itching were 0, and the median composite Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale score on day 1 was 0.3 (IQR, 0.1-0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians using this protocol, which combines a long-acting, single-injection nerve block with multimodal analgesia, can inform TSA patients that their postoperative pain will likely be less than their preoperative pain, and that on average they will stop using opioids after 7 days. Future research could investigate what the individual components of this protocol contribute. Larger cohort studies or registries would document the incidence of rare complications. Randomized controlled trials could directly compare analgesic effectiveness and cost-benefits for this protocol versus alternative strategies, such as perineural catheters or liposomal bupivacaine. Perhaps most importantly, future studies could seek ways to further reduce peak pain and opioid usage on POD 2 and POD 3. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Evidence Basis for Ultrasound-Guided Block Characteristics Onset, Quality, and Duration.

This systematic review summarizes existing evidence for superior onset, quality, and duration of block for ultrasound guidance versus other techniques for nerve localization. MEDLINE was systematically searched from 1966 to June 2013 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound guidance to another technique for peripheral nerve blocks. Twenty-three RCTs were identified for upper-extremity peripheral nerve blocks and 17 for lower extremity. Jadad scores for quality of RCT ranged from 1 to 5 with a median of 3. For upper-extremity blocks, 11 (48%) of 23 RCTs reported faster onset of block, 9 (39%) of 23 reported better quality of block, and 1 (14%) of 7 reported longer duration of block with ultrasound. One RCT reported that ultrasound was inferior for onset of combined median and ulnar block. For lower-extremity blocks, 8 (80%) of 10 RCTs reported faster onset, 9 (56%) of 16 reported better quality, and 2 (33%) of 6 RCTs reported longer duration of blocks. One RCT reported that ultrasound was inferior for quality and duration for ankle block. There is level 1b evidence to make a grade A recommendation that ultrasound guidance provides a modest improvement in block onset and quality of peripheral nerve blocks, especially for lower extremity. Ultrasound is rarely inferior to other techniques.

The Second American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Evidence-Based Medicine Assessment of Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia: Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVES: In 2009 and again in 2012, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine assembled an expert panel to assess the evidence basis for ultrasound guidance as a nerve localization tool for regional anesthesia. METHODS: The 2012 panel reviewed evidence from the first advisory but focused primarily on new information that had emerged since 2009. A new section was added regarding the accuracy and reliability of ultrasound for determining needle-to-nerve proximity. Jadad scores are used to rank study quality. Grades of recommendations consistent with their level of evidence are provided. RESULTS: The panel offers recommendations based on synthesis and analysis of literature related to (1) the technical capabilities of ultrasound equipment and its operators, (2) comparison of ultrasound to other methods of nerve localization with regard to block characteristics, (3) comparison of block techniques where ultrasound is the sole nerve localization modality, and (4) major complications. Assessment of evidence strength and recommendations are made for upper- and lower-extremity, truncal, neuraxial, and pediatric blocks. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific evidence from the past 5 years has clarified and strengthened our understanding of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia as a nerve localization tool. High-level evidence supports ultrasound guidance contributing to superior characteristics with selected blocks, although absolute differences with the comparator technique are often relatively small (especially for upper-extremity blocks). The clinical meaningfulness of these differences is likely of variable importance to individual practitioners. The use of ultrasound significantly reduces the risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity as well as the incidence and intensity of hemidiaphragmatic paresis, but has no significant effect on the incidence of postoperative neurologic symptoms. WHAT'S NEW IN THIS UPDATE?: This evidence-based assessment of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia reviews findings from our 2010 publication and focuses on new meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large case series published since 2009. New to this exercise is an in-depth analysis of the accuracy and reliability of ultrasound guidance for identifying needle-to-nerve relationships. This version no longer addresses ultrasound for interventional pain medicine procedures, because the growth of that field demands separate consideration. Since our 2010 publication, new information has either supported or strengthened our original conclusions. There is no evidence that ultrasound is inferior to alternative nerve localization methods.

Local Anesthetic Peripheral Nerve Block Adjuvants for Prolongation of Analgesia: A Systematic Qualitative Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of peripheral nerve blocks for anesthesia and postoperative analgesia has increased significantly in recent years. Adjuvants are frequently added to local anesthetics to prolong analgesia following peripheral nerve blockade. Numerous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have examined the pros and cons of the use of various individual adjuvants. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review adjuvant-related randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses and provide clinical recommendations for the use of adjuvants in peripheral nerve blocks. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that were published between 1990 and 2014 were included in the initial bibliographic search, which was conducted using Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Only studies that were published in English and listed block analgesic duration as an outcome were included. Trials that had already been published in the identified meta-analyses and included adjuvants not in widespread use and published without an Investigational New Drug application or equivalent status were excluded. RESULTS: Sixty one novel clinical trials and meta-analyses were identified and included in this review. The clinical trials reported analgesic duration data for the following adjuvants: buprenorphine (6), morphine (6), fentanyl (10), epinephrine (3), clonidine (7), dexmedetomidine (7), dexamethasone (7), tramadol (8), and magnesium (4). Studies of perineural buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, and magnesium most consistently demonstrated prolongation of peripheral nerve blocks. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone, magnesium, and dexmedetomidine are promising agents for use in prolongation of local anesthetic peripheral nerve blocks, and further studies of safety and efficacy are merited. However, caution is recommended with use of any perineural adjuvant, as none have Food and Drug Administration approval, and concerns for side effects and potential toxicity persist.

Association of obesity with inflammation and pain after total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity is increasing, and obesity often leads to degenerative joint disease requiring total hip arthroplasty (THA). Obesity is a proinflammatory state associated with an increase in chronic, low-grade inflammatory response. As such, it may augment the postoperative inflammatory response, which has been associated with postoperative pain and complications. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined whether severity of obesity was associated with (1) severity of inflammatory response, as measured by the in vivo circulating levels of cytokines and ex vivo functional reactivity of mononuclear blood cells, and (2) severity of pain, as measured by verbal pain scores and analgesic consumption, in the first 24 hours after THA. METHODS: We studied 60 patients (20 normal weight, 20 overweight, 20 obese) undergoing elective primary unilateral THA in this prospective cross-sectional study. Blood samples were collected for C-reactive protein and cytokine levels, including IL-1ß, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), from patients before and 24 hours after surgery. Cytokine response of whole blood was evaluated ex vivo with or without two standard activators, phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate and lipopolysaccharide, using standardized blood sample from patients at 24 hours. These standard immune activators are implicated in the inflammatory response to gram-negative infection, translocation of microbial products, pathophysiology of septic shock syndrome in human, and tumor promotion. Pain response was gauged using verbal pain scores (on a 0- to 10-point scale, where 0 = no pain and 10 = worst pain) at rest and with activity at 24 hours after surgery and analgesic consumption of volume of epidural analgesic solution for the first 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS: No correlation was found between BMI and postoperative spontaneous circulating cytokine levels. However, after activation of blood leukocytes with lipopolysaccharide, there was a significant positive correlation between the BMI and IL-1ß, IL-6, and TNF-α levels (r = 0.26-0.32; p = 0.03, p = 0.03, and p = 0.01, respectively), suggesting priming of the innate immune system in obesity and potential for excessive postoperative inflammatory response. Obesity was not associated with increased pain or analgesic consumption in the first 24 hours after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is associated with a proinflammatory state after THA as demonstrated by enhanced cytokine reactivity. Larger studies exploring the specific impact of obesity and inflammation on surgical outcomes, including pain, are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Perioperative comparative effectiveness of anesthetic technique in orthopedic patients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of anesthetic technique on perioperative outcomes remains controversial. We studied a large national sample of primary joint arthroplasty recipients and hypothesized that neuraxial anesthesia favorably influences perioperative outcomes. METHODS: Data from approximately 400 hospitals between 2006 and 2010 were accessed. Patients who underwent primary hip or knee arthroplasty were identified and subgrouped by anesthesia technique: general, neuraxial, and combined neuraxial-general. Demographics, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and patient cost were analyzed and compared. Multivariable analyses were conducted to identify the independent impact of choice of anesthetic on outcomes. RESULTS: Of 528,495 entries of patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty, information on anesthesia type was available for 382,236 (71.4%) records. Eleven percent were performed under neuraxial, 14.2% under combined neuraxial-general, and 74.8% under general anesthesia. Average age and comorbidity burden differed modestly between groups. When neuraxial anesthesia was used, 30-day mortality was significantly lower (0.10, 0.10, and 0.18%; P < 0.001), as was the incidence of prolonged (>75th percentile) length of stay, increased cost, and in-hospital complications. In the multivariable regression, neuraxial anesthesia was associated with the most favorable complication risk profile. Thirty-day mortality remained significantly higher in the general compared with the neuraxial or neuraxial-general group for total knee arthroplasty (adjusted odds ratio [OR] of 1.83, 95% CI 1.08-3.1, P = 0.02; OR of 1.70, 95% CI 1.06-2.74, P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of neuraxial versus general anesthesia for primary joint arthroplasty is associated with superior perioperative outcomes. More research is needed to study potential mechanisms for these findings.

Predictors for moderate to severe acute postoperative pain after total hip and knee replacement.

PURPOSE: The ability to identify and focus care to patients at higher risk of moderate to severe postoperative pain should improve analgesia and patient satisfaction, and may affect reimbursement. We undertook this multi-centre cross-sectional study to identify preoperative risk factors for moderate to severe pain after total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacement. METHODS: A total of 897 patients were identified from electronic medical records. Preoperative information and anaesthetic technique was gained by retrospective chart review. The primary outcomes were moderate to severe pain (pain score ≥ 4/10) at rest and with activity on postoperative day one. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors for moderate to severe pain. RESULTS: Moderate to severe pain was reported by 20 % at rest and 33 % with activity. Predictors for pain at rest were female gender (OR 1.10 with 95 % CI 1.01-1.20), younger age (0.96, 0.94-0.99), increased BMI (1.02, 1.01-1.03), TKR vs. THR (3.21, 2.73-3.78), increased severity of preoperative pain at the surgical site (1.15, 1.03-1.30), preoperative use of opioids (1.63, 1.32-2.01), and general anaesthesia (8.51, 2.13-33.98). Predictors for pain with activity were TKR vs. THR (1.42, 1.28-1.57), increased severity of preoperative pain at the surgical site (1.11, 1.04-1.19), general anaesthesia (9.02, 3.68-22.07), preoperative use of anti-convulsants (1.78, 1.32-2.40) and anti-depressants (1.50, 1.08-2.80), and prior surgery at the surgical site (1.28, 1.05-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide clinical guidance for preoperative stratification of patients for more intensive management potentially including education, nursing staffing, and referral to specialised pain management.

A cross-sectional survey on prevalence and risk factors for persistent postsurgical pain 1 year after total hip and knee replacement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of large multi-institutional surveys to determine the prevalence of and risk factors for persistent pain after total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacements. We surveyed a variety of practices and patients and also correlated persistent pain with health-related quality-of-life outcomes. METHODS: From October 10, 2007, to March 15, 2010, patients who had undergone primary THR or TKR with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were identified. A previously published questionnaire to identify persistent postsurgical pain that included a 36-item Short Form Health Survey was mailed to this group. Independent risk factors for persistent pain were identified with logistic regression. RESULTS: Responses from 1030 patients who underwent surgery at some point in time between June 13, 2006, and June 24, 2009, were analyzed (32% response rate). Forty-six percent of patients reported persistent pain (38% after THR and 53% after TKR) with a median average pain score of 3 of 10 and worst pain score of 5. Independent risk factors for persistent pain were female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.23), younger age (OR, 0.97), prior surgery on hip or knee (OR, 1.39), knee versus hip replacement (OR, 1.65), lower-quality postsurgical pain control (OR, 0.9), and presence of pain in other areas of the body (OR, 2.09). All scores in the 36-item Short Form Health Survey were worse (8%-28% decrease) in patients with persistent postsurgical pain (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Persistent postsurgical pain is common after THR and TKR and is associated with reduced health-related quality of life, although our survey may be biased by the low response rate and retrospective recall bias. Nonmodifiable risk factors may lead to risk stratification. Severity of acute postoperative pain may be a modifiable risk factor.

Addition of pregabalin to multimodal analgesic therapy following ankle surgery: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pregabalin is often used as a perioperative analgesic adjunct; some studies show benefit, but others do not. Adverse effects, such as confusion and sedation, have been attributed to perioperative use of pregabalin. We tested the hypothesis that pregabalin, when used as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen, reduces the duration of moderate to severe pain in the first 24 hrs following foot or ankle surgery. Secondary outcomes included measures of opioid and pregabalin adverse effects. METHODS: Sixty patients scheduled for hospital admission after foot or ankle surgery entered this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients received a neuraxial anesthetic, a popliteal fossa sciatic nerve block using 30 mL 0.375% bupivacaine with clonidine 100 µg and epinephrine, a saphenous nerve block, postoperative hydromorphone intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, and oral analgesics (oxycodone/acetaminophen). Patients were randomized to receive pregabalin (100 mg preoperatively, then 50 mg every 12 hrs) or a placebo for 3 days. The primary outcome was the number of hours that patients reported moderate to severe pain. RESULTS: Both groups reported a similar number of hours of moderate to severe pain during the first 24 hrs: 4.1 (SD, 4.1) hrs (pregabalin) versus 4.5 (SD, 3.5) hrs (placebo). Pain scores, opioid use, and adverse effects were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: No clinical benefit was obtained from perioperative administration of pregabalin (100 mg preoperative, then 50 mg every 12 hrs) as part of a multimodal postoperative analgesic regimen following foot and ankle surgery.

Nerve stimulator versus ultrasound guidance for placement of popliteal catheters for foot and ankle surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ultrasound guidance improves the quality of continuous popliteal block when compared with a nerve stimulator after major foot and ankle surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial. SETTING: Operating room, Postanesthesia Care Unit (PACU), and hospital wards of a university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: 45 ASA physical status 1, 2, and 3 patients undergoing elective major foot and ankle surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Placement of a popliteal sciactic nerve catheter using either nerve stimulator or ultrasound guidance. In the PACU, a continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% was started at a basal rate of 4 mL/hr and adjusted in a standardized fashion to maintain visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores < 4. All patients also received intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia with hydromorphone and oral opioids. MEASUREMENTS: VAS pain scores at rest and with physical therapy, ropivacaine use, opioid use, and opioid-related side effects were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: Cummulative ropivacaine use was lower in patients whose catheter was placed by ultrasound than by nerve stimulator guidance (mean 50 vs 197 mL, P < 0.001). Pain scores at rest and during activity were similar between groups. Cumulative opioid consumption (mean 858 vs 809 mg oral morphine equivalents) and daily frequencies of nausea (5% to 33% vs 0 to 24%) and pruritus (0 to 21% vs 0 to 24%) were similar between groups. Length of hospital stay was similar between groups (3.5 vs 3.7 days). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance was associated with less local anesthetic consumption than with the nerve stimulator; however, there was little clinical benefit, as all other outcomes were similar between groups.