4.5 Article

Reduced hospital stay, morphine consumption, and pain intensity with local infiltration analgesia after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

期刊

ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA
卷 80, 期 2, 页码 213-219

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/17453670902930008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose The degree of postoperative pain is usually moderate to severe following knee arthroplasty. We investigated the efficacy of local administration of analgesics into the operating area, both intraoperatively and postoperatively. Methods 40 patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) were randomized into 2 groups in a double-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00653926). In group A (active), 200 mg ropivacaine, 30 mg ketorolac, and 0.5 mg epinephrine (total volume 106 mL) were infiltrated intraoperatively into the soft tissue, while in group P (placebo), no injections were given. 21 hours postoperatively, 150 mg ropivacain, 30 mg ketorolac, and 0.1 mg epinephrine were injected intraarticularly via a catheter in group A, whereas patients in group P were injected with the same volume of saline (22 mL). Results Median hospital stay was shorter in group A than in group P: 1 (1-6) days as opposed to 3 (1-6) days (p 0.001). Postoperative pain in group A was statistically significantly lower at rest after 6 h and 27 h and on movement after 6, 12, 22, and 27 h. Morphine consumption was statistically significantly lower in group A for the first 48 h, resulting in a lower frequency of nausea, pruritus, and sedation. Postoperatively, there were improved functional scores (Oxford knee score and EQ-5D) in both groups relative to the corresponding preoperative values. Interpretation Local injection of analgesics periarticularly at the end of the operation and intraarticularly at 21 h postoperatively provided excellent pain relief and earlier home discharge following UKA. There was a high degree of patient satisfaction in both groups after 6 months (Clinical Trials.gov: NCT 00653926).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据