Intra-articular infiltration analgesia for arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Phrenic-sparing analgesic techniques for shoulder surgery are desirable. Intra-articular infiltration analgesia is one promising phrenic-sparing modality, but its role remains unclear because of conflicting evidence of analgesic efficacy and theoretical concerns regarding chondrotoxicity. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the benefits and risks of intra-articular infiltration in arthroscopic shoulder surgery compared with systemic analgesia or interscalene brachial plexus block. We sought randomised controlled trials comparing intra-articular infiltration with interscalene brachial plexus block or systemic analgesia (control). Cumulative 24-h postoperative oral morphine equivalent consumption was designated as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale pain scores during the first 24 h postoperatively; time-to-first analgesic request; patient satisfaction; opioid-related side-effects; block-related adverse events; and any indicators of chondrotoxicity. Fifteen trials (863 patients) were included. Compared with control, intra-articular infiltration reduced 24-h postoperative analgesic consumption by a weighted mean difference (95%CI) of -30.9 ([-38.9 to -22.9]; p < 0.001). Intra-articular infiltration also reduced the weighted mean difference (95%CI) pain scores up to 12 h postoperatively, with the greatest reduction at 4 h (-2.2 cm [(-4.4 to -0.04]); p < 0.05). Compared with interscalene brachial plexus block, there was no difference in opioid consumption, but patients receiving interscalene brachial plexus block had better pain scores at 2, 4 and 24 h postoperatively. There was no difference in opioid- or block-related adverse events, and none of the trials reported chondrotoxic effects. Compared with systemic analgesia, intra-articular infiltration provides superior pain control, reduces opioid consumption and enhances patient satisfaction, but it may be inferior to interscalene brachial plexus block patients having arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Complementary Saphenous Nerve Block to Intra-Articular Analgesia Reduces Pain After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Numerous strategies exist for pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with a fast recovery and early ambulation required for full function. Currently, there is no universal standard of care to facilitate this management. We assessed pain management safety and efficacy after TKA, using intra-articular infiltration associated with peripheral saphenous nerve block (SNB) vs intra-articular infiltration alone. METHODS: We performed a controlled, double-blinded, and randomized trial to evaluate postoperative pain in TKA. One group was treated with intra-articular analgesia associated with SNB, whereas a second group received the same intra-articular cocktail, associated with placebo. Efficacy was evaluated according to average pain, pain-free time, and morphine rescue indices. Safety was assessed by intervention complications and surgery. RESULTS: About 70 patients were recruited. At time 0 (immediately postoperative), 51.43% of the intra-articular analgesia + placebo group presented pain <3, whereas in the intra-articular analgesia + SNB group, 8.82% (P = .001) presented with pain. This difference was maintained at 6, 12, and 24 hours, postoperatively. After 24 hours, the placebo group received an average 0.66 morphine rescues (standard deviation, 0.86), when compared with the SNB group that received 0.14 rescues (standard deviation, 0.43), (P = .002). We recorded a paresis of the external popliteal sciatic nerve, with spontaneous recovery without other complications. CONCLUSION: Complementary SNB to intra-articular analgesia was more effective in reducing average pain and the amount of pain-free time in the first 24 hours after TKA, with fewer requests for morphine rescue analgesia.

Iodine contrast agents do not influence Platelet-Rich Plasma function at an early time point in vitro.

BACKGROUND: Iodine contrast agents (ICAs) are routinely used by radiologists to help guide intra-articular infiltrations. The aim of this study was to assess the in vitro effects of ICA on platelet function of human autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP). METHODS: One hundred thirty-seven consecutive patients with symptomatic femoral-patellar osteoarthritis were included. All were addressed to our institution for a fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular PRP infiltration of the pathological femoral-patellar joint. For each patient, 500 µl of PRP were sampled before intra-articular injection. First, PRP samples were mixed with 50 µl of 2 widely used ICA: Visipaque270® (Iodixanol, n = 58) and Iopamiron200® (Iopamidol, n = 69). PRP concentration ([PRP]) was measured at different delays of incubation (t = 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 min) enabling to calculate PRP ratio (defined as [PRP](t)/[PRP](0mn)) at each delay, for each mixture, in order to quantitatively assess the influence of ICA on PRP ratio. Second, the PRP samples of 10 additional patients were mixed with Visipaque270®, Visipaque270®, Iopamiron200® and phosphate buffer saline (PBS: control solution) in order to qualitatively assess the influence of ICA on platelet aggregation, using ADP, Collagen, Arachidonic acid and TRAP tests. The surface expression of human P-selectin, a marker of α-granule release, in the PRP + Visipaque270® and PRP + Iopamiron200® mixtures was finally compared. Repeated-measures ANOVA, classical 2-way ANOVA and Wilcoxon matched-pairs test were used to study the influence of ICA on PRP quality. RESULTS: There was no significant change in PRP ratio during the first 30mn of incubation (p = 0.991) whatever the ICA (p = 0.926). Whatever the aggregation test, there was no significant difference in the percentage of platelet aggregation between PRP + PBS, PRP + Visipaque270® and PRP + Iopamiron200® (p = 0.998), nor between PRP + PBS and PRP + Visipaque320® (p = 0.470). Finally, there was no significant difference in P-selectin expression between the PRP + Visipaque270® and PRP + Iopamiron200® mixtures (p = 0.500). CONCLUSION: At early delays of incubation, Visipaque® and Iopamiron®, which are two widely used ICA for intra-articular infiltrations, did not influence the in vitro platelet function nor the quality of PRP.

Leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma is more effective than the conventional therapy with acetaminophen for the treatment of early knee osteoarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative and progressive articular cartilage disease. Infiltration of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been proposed as a therapeutic alternative due to the content of biologically active cytokines in PRP. We aimed to compare the clinical response of acetaminophen and intra-articular leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) in early knee OA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 65 patients with clinically and radiographically documented knee OA (grade 1-2) were analyzed. Patients were randomized into two groups: 32 were treated with acetaminophen (500 mg/8 h) over 6 weeks, and 33 received three intra-articular injections of autologous LP-PRP (once every 2 weeks). All patients were evaluated by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score, and the SF-12 health survey at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 weeks of follow-up. All LP-PRP preparations were analyzed for the platelet, leukocyte, IL-1ra, and TGF-ß concentrations. RESULTS: The decrease in the VAS pain level in the LP-PRP group was greater than that in the acetaminophen group (p < 0.05). Patients treated with LP-PRP showed a sustained improvement in knee function at week 24 (p < 0.01). The SF-12 results only indicated an improvement in quality-of-life in the LP-PRP group at 6, 12, and 24 weeks of follow-up (p < 0.01). Both IL-1ra and TGF-ß were detected in the LP-PRP samples (313.8 ± 231.6 and 21,183.8 ± 8556.3 pg/mL, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with LP-PRP injections resulted in a significantly better clinical outcome than did treatment with acetaminophen, with sustained lower EVA and WOMAC scores and improvement in quality-of-life (higher SF-12 score). Therapy with LP-PRP may positively modify the inflammatory joint environment by counteracting IL-1ß action.

Bloqueos de nervio periférico para el dolor posoperatorio de artroscopia de cadera / Peripheral nerve block for the postoperative pain relief after arthroscopy of the hip

Introducción: el tratamiento del dolor posoperatorio de la artroscopia de cadera es un reto y no se conocen estudios relacionados con su tratamiento basado en bloqueos regionales. Objetivo: Determinar el comportamiento del dolor posoperatorio y la satisfacción de los pacientes tratados por artroscopia de cadera con bloqueo femoral, bloqueo del plexo lumbar o infiltración intraarticular. Métodos: Se revisaron prospectivamente todos los registros anestésicos de 61 pacientes que requirieron artroscopia de cadera bajo anestesia general utilizando bloqueo femoral con 0,3 mL/kg de levobupivacaína al 0,375 %, bloqueo del plexo lumbar con 0,4 mL/kg de levobupivacaína al 0,375 % o infiltración intraarticular con 20 mL de bupivacaína al 0,5 %. Se revisaron los datos de dolor posoperatorio evaluados con escala visual análoga a los 15, 30, 60 y 120 minutos y a las 24 horas; la satisfacción del paciente en el momento del alta hospitalaria y a las 24 horas, el bloqueo motor y sensitivo y la necesidad de morfina en el posoperatorio. Resultados: El grupo tratado con infiltración intraarticular presentó los niveles de dolor más altos en casi todos los momentos evaluados. Comparado con el bloqueo del plexo lumbar, más pacientes del grupo bloqueo femoral presentaron niveles mayores de dolor en casi todos los momentos. De los pacientes del grupo tratado con infiltración intraarticular 55 % recibieron morfina en algún momento del posoperatorio, así como 28,5 % del grupo bloqueo femoral y 15 % del grupo bloqueo del plexo lumbar. El nivel de satisfacción de los pacientes fue alto y similar en los tres grupos. Conclusión: La analgesia posoperatoria para artroscopia de cadera fue mejor con bloqueo del plexo lumbar comparado con el bloqueo femoral o la infiltración intraarticular.

Background: The treatment of postoperative pain after arthroscopy of the hip is a challenge and there are no known studies related to its treatment which have been based on regional block. Objectives:To determine the behaviour of postoperative pain and the satisfaction of the patients who have been treated with arthroscopy of the hip with femoral block, lumbar plexus block or intra-articular infiltration. Methods:All the anaesthetic records of 61 patients that required arthroscopy of the hip under general anaesthesia using femoral block with 0,3 mL/kg of Levobupivacaine 0,375 %, lumbar plexus block with 0,4 mL/kg of Levobupivacaine 0,375 % or intra-articular infiltration with 20 mL of Bupivacaine 0,5 % were checked. The data about postoperative pain which had been assessed with visual analogous scale at the 15, 30, 60 and 120 minutes and at the 24 hours, the satisfaction of the patients at the moment of the discharge from hospital at the 24 hours, the sensitive and motor block and the need to use Morphine in the postoperative phase were also checked. Results:The group of patients that were treated with intra-articular infiltration presented the highest levels of pain in almost all evaluated moments. As compared with the lumbar plexus block, more patients that underwent femoral block presented higher levels of pain in almost all moments. Out of the patients in the group that was treated with intra-articular infiltration, the 55 % received Morphine at any postoperative moment as well as the 28,5 % treated with femoral block and the 15 % who underwent lumbar plexus block. The level of patients´ satisfaction was high and similar in the three groups. Conclusions:Postoperative analgesia for arthroscopy of the hip was better with lumbar plexus block as compared with femoral block or intra-articular infiltration.