RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a newly developed regional anesthesia technique designed to manage post-operative hip pain following a fracture or surgery while also maintaining quadriceps strength and mobility. The goal of our study was to compare post-operative pain scores and opioid usage during the post-operative period prior to discharge following total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the posterior approach between patients who received a PENG block and those who did not. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on patients undergoing elective, posterior approach THA at a single tertiary care academic center. The two groups included a study group (THA with PENG block in 2021; n = 66) and a control group (THA prior to PENG block implementation in 2019; n = 70). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in pain scores during post-operative minutes 0 to 59 (study group 6.8; control group 6.6; P = 0.81) or during post-operative minutes 60 to 119 (study group 6.2; control group 5.6; P = 0.40). There were no significant differences in total post-operative in-hospital morphine milliequivalent (MME) opioid consumption (study group 55.8 MMEs; control group 75.0 MMEs; P = 0.14). The study group was found to have a shorter length of stay (LOS) (study group 17.0 hours; control group 32.6 hours; P < 0.0001) and faster mobilization (study group 3.0 hours; control group 4.9 hours; P < 0.0001) than the control group. CONCLUSION: Our results show that use of the PENG block did not result in lower post-operative pain scores or opioid consumption after THA using the posterior surgical approach. The study group had a shorter LOS and time to mobilization than the control group, though this was likely due to standard hospital procedure shifting to same day discharge for THA between 2019 and 2021 due to COVID-19.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The best antibiotic spacer for periprosthetic knee joint infection treatment is unknown. Using a metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) component provides a functional knee and may avoid a second surgery. Our study investigated complication rates, treatment efficacies, durabilities, and costs of MoP articulating spacer constructs using either an all-polyethylene tibia (APT) or a polyethylene insert (PI). We hypothesized that while the PI would cost less, the APT spacer would have lower complication rates and higher efficacies and durabilities. METHODS: A retrospective review evaluated 126 consecutive articulating knee spacer (64 APTs and 62 PIs) cases from 2016 to 2020 was performed. Demographic information, spacer components, complication rates, infection recurrence, spacer longevity, and implant costs were analyzed. Complications were classified as follows: spacer-related; antibiotic-related; infection recurrence; or medical. Spacer longevity was measured for patients who underwent reimplantation and for those who had a retained spacer. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in overall complications (P < .48), spacer-related complications (P = 1.0), infection recurrences (P = 1.0), antibiotic-related complications (P < .24), or medical complications (P < .41). Average time to reimplantation was 19.1 weeks (4.3 to 98.3 weeks) for APT spacers and 14.4 weeks (6.7 to 39.7 weeks) for PI spacers (P = .09). There were 31% (20 of 64) of APT spacers and 30% (19 of 62) of PI spacers that remained intact for an average duration of 26.2 (2.3 to 76.1) and 17.1 weeks (1.7 to 54.7) (P = .25), respectively, for patients who lived for the duration of the study. PI spacers cost less than APT ($1,474.19 versus $2,330.47, respectively; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: APT and PI tibial components have similar results regarding complication profiles and infection recurrence. Both may be durable if spacer retention is elected, with PI constructs being less expensive.
