A Novel Approach to Improving Post-Operative Pain and Minimizing Opioid Consumption After a Hip Arthroscopy.

Background: There have been many different approaches to controlling pain in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. These include medications, nerve blocks, and intra-articular injections among many others. We introduced a combination of a pre-operative pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block, and intra-operative pericapsular injection of BKK (bupivacaine, ketamine, and ketorolac). Methods: Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy were identified. There were three patient cohorts based on type of anesthesia: general anesthesia only (GA), general anesthesia and a pericapsular Marcaine injection (GA/Marcaine), or GA with pre-operative PENG block and an intraoperative BKK pericapsular injection (GA+PENG/BKK). Data collected included post-operative pain scores in the PACU (Post-Anesthesia Care Unit), time spent in the PACU, inpatient opioid consumption (both PACU and inpatient), and outpatient opioid prescriptions filled. Results: 20 patients received GA, 11 patients received GA/Marcaine, and 20 patients received GA+PENG/BKK. The GA+PENG/BKK group had average PACU pain score of 3.9 out of 10 compared to 7.7 in the GA group (p<.001) and 6.6 in the GA/Marcaine injection group (p=.048). The GA+PENG/BKK group had shorter mean PACU times than either other group (p<.001). The GA+PENG/BKK also consumed less opioids than the GA or GA/Marcaine groups in the PACU (p<.001), and in the total inpatient stay (p=.002, p=.003), as well as outpatient (p=.019, p=.040). Conclusion: In patients undergoing a hip arthroscopy, performing a pre-operative PENG block and intra-operative BKK pericapsular injection will result in decreased postoperative pain, PACU time, and inpatient and outpatient opioids compared to general anesthesia only and general anesthesia with intracapsular Marcaine.

Benefits of Implementing an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Ambulatory Surgery.

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in orthopaedic surgery have garnered significant focus due to their ability to control pain adequately in the immediate postoperative window, allowing for earlier mobilization, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications. Virginia Commonwealth University created a multimodal pain management approach in which patients receive a preoperative femoral nerve block followed by periarticular intraoperative local injection anesthesia consisting of bupivacaine, ketamine, and ketorolac. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that implementation of the ERAS protocol will decrease postoperative pain scores, decrease recovery time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and decrease opioid use in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Two patient cohorts were involved: before ERAS implementation (pre-ERAS) and after (post-ERAS). Patients with ACL reconstruction only and patients with ACL reconstruction with meniscal repair were analyzed separately. Post-ERAS patients received an intraoperative periarticular injection of bupivacaine, ketamine, and ketorolac and a postoperative multimodal pain regimen. Outcomes included time spent in the PACU, short-term and long-term opioid consumption, and pain score at discharge from the PACU. Results: Compared with pre-ERAS patients, post-ERAS patients had decreased pain (2.1 vs 0.84 out of 10, respectively), spent less time in the PACU (79.4 vs 62.8 minutes, respectively), and had less opioid consumption in the immediate postoperative period (4.55 vs 2.26 total morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs], respectively) (P < .001 for all). After ERAS implementation, long-term MME use decreased from 410 to 321 between 0 and 2 weeks postoperatively, 92.6 to 1.69 between 2 and 6 weeks, and 494.5 to 323 between 0 and 6 weeks (P < .001 for all). All domains showed significant improvements for both the ACL and the ACL plus meniscal repair cohorts, with the exception of pain at discharge in the ACL plus meniscal repair group. Conclusion: The study findings suggest that an enhanced recovery pathways protocol that includes a standardized intraoperative periarticular bupivacaine, ketamine, and ketorolac injection improves pain scores in the immediate postoperative window, decreases opioid consumption, and reduces recovery time in the PACU for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction.

Mouse IPK: A Powerful Tool to Partially Characterize Renal Reperfusion and Preservation Injury.

MAIN PROBLEM: The molecular basis of renal preservation injury is not well understood. Since mouse kidney transplantation models are not useful in this setting, a mouse Isolated Perfused Kidney (IPK) model was developed to take advantage of mouse genetic design capabilities for testing complex biological hypothesis regarding mechanisms of preservation injury in transplanted kidneys. METHODS: Mouse kidneys were recovered, preserved, and reperfused in-vitro with an acellular physiological crystalloid buffer containing hypo-physiological oncotic pressure. Outcome variables were measured to predict preservation injury. These included perfusate flow, vascular resistance, VO2, urine output, GFR, proteinuria, LDH release, and edema. The model was tested by subjecting mouse kidneys to cold storage in University of Wisconsin (UW) solution for 24, 48, or 72 hours (time-dependent preservation injury), cold storage in Euro-Collins Solution (solution dependent preservation injury), and exposure to prior warm ischemia (DCD dependent preservation injury). RESULTS: The model accurately predicted the qualitative and quantitative changes in the readouts based on known responses to preservation injury in kidney transplants in large animals and humans. CONCLUSION: The mouse IPK accurately predicts many of the variables associated with renal organ preservation injury in the very early phases of reperfusion and may provide an attractive model for studying the molecular basis of renal preservation injury.

Comparison of costs of community and mail service pharmacy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of prescriptions dispensed through mail service and community pharmacies to quantify the comparative costs of the two types of pharmacies. DESIGN: Modeling study based on 1-year of claims data from a cohort of patients. SETTING: A health plan in the northeastern United States. PATIENTS: Approximately 100,000 members of the health plan. INTERVENTION: The plan used a small pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) and a mail service pharmacy that was not owned by a major PBM, a three-tier benefit design, and specified that patients could get a 90-day supply through mail service for the equivalent of two 30-day community pharmacy copayments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Actual total, ingredient, plan, and patient costs of prescriptions dispensed through a mail service pharmacy and the estimated costs of those same prescriptions at community pharmacies. RESULTS: Total costs for the 44,847 prescriptions dispensed through mail service were dollar 6,401,624. Had these prescriptions been dispensed at community pharmacies, costs would have been dollar 6,902,252. Ingredient costs were dollar 6,401,624 through mail versus dollar 6,633,170 at community pharmacies. Total costs to the health plan were dollar 4,726,637 through mail versus dollar 4,417,733 at community pharmacies. Member costs were dollar 1,674,987 through mail versus dollar 2,484,519 at community pharmacies. CONCLUSION: Compared with community pharmacies, the mail service pharmacy was less expensive overall, less expensive for patients, but more expensive to the health plan. From the health plan's perspective, the loss of copayments in the mail service benefit was greater than the savings on ingredient costs and dispensing fees.