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.

Should we use similar perioperative protocols in patients undergoing unilateral and bilateral one-stage total knee arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Bilateral one-stage total knee arthroplasty (BTKA) is now in greater use as an alternative option for patients with bilateral end-stage knee arthropathy. However, postoperative pain and disablement during convalescence from BTKA, and procedure-related complications have been concerning issues for patients and surgeons. Although some studies reported that BTKA in selected patients is as safe as the staged procedure, well-defined guidelines for patient screening, and perioperative care and monitoring to avoid procedure-related complications are still controversial. AIM: To compare the perioperative outcomes including perioperative blood loss (PBL), cardiac biomarkers, pain intensity, functional recovery, and complications between unilateral total knee arthroplasty (UTKA) and BTKA performed with a similar perioperative protocol. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on consecutive patients undergoing UTKA and BTKA that had been performed by a single surgeon with identical perioperative protocols. The exclusion criteria of this study included patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score > 3, and known cardiopulmonary comorbidity or high-sensitivity Troponin-T (hs-TnT) > 14 ng/L. Outcome measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) score of postoperative pain, morphine consumption, range of knee motion, straight leg raise (SLR), length of stay (LOS), and serum hemoglobin (Hb) and hs-TnT monitored during hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 210 UTKA and 137 BTKA patients, those in the BTKA group were younger and more predominately female. The PBL of the UTKA vs BTKA group was 646.45 ± 272.26 mL vs 1012.40 ± 391.95 mL (P < 0.01), and blood transfusion rates were 10.48% and 40.88% (P < 0.01), respectively. Preoperative Hb and body mass index were predictive factors for blood transfusion in BTKA, whereas preoperative Hb was only a determinant in UTKA patients. The BTKA group had significantly higher VAS scores than the UTKA group at 48, 72, and 96 h after surgery, and also had a significantly lower degree of SLR at 72 h. The BTKA group also had a significantly longer LOS than the UTKA group. Of the patients who had undergone the procedure, 5.71% of the UTKA patients and 12.41% of the BTKA patients (P = 0.04) had hs-TnT > 14 ng/L during the first 72 h postoperatively. However, there was no difference in other outcome measures and complications. CONCLUSION: Following similar perioperative management, the blood transfusion rate in BTKA is 4-fold that required in UTKA. Also, BTKA is associated with higher pain intensity at 48 h postoperatively and prolonged LOS when compared to the UTKA. Hence, BTKA patients may require more extensive perioperative management for blood loss and pain, even if having no higher risk of complications than UTKA.