Andersen L Ø, Kehlet H
The Lundbeck Centre for Fast-track Hip and Knee Arthroplasty, Copenhagen, Denmark Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
The Lundbeck Centre for Fast-track Hip and Knee Arthroplasty, Copenhagen, Denmark Section for Surgical Pathophysiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Sep;113(3):360-74. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu155. Epub 2014 Jun 17.
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in local infiltration analgesia (LIA) as a technique to control postoperative pain. We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials investigating LIA for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of LIA for early postoperative pain treatment. In addition, the analgesic efficacy of wound catheters and implications for length of hospital stay (LOS) were evaluated. Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials in 756 patients operated on with THA and 888 patients operated on with TKA were selected for inclusion in the review. In THA, no additional analgesic effect of LIA compared with placebo was reported in trials with low risk of bias when a multimodal analgesic regimen was administered perioperatively. Compared with intrathecal morphine and epidural analgesia, LIA was reported to have similar or improved analgesic efficacy. In TKA, most trials reported reduced pain and reduced opioid requirements with LIA compared with a control group treated with placebo/no injection. Compared with femoral nerve block, epidural or intrathecal morphine LIA provided similar or improved analgesia in the early postoperative period but most trials had a high risk of bias due to different systemic analgesia between groups. Overall, the use of wound catheters for postoperative administration of local anaesthetic was not supported in the included trials, and LOS was not related to analgesic efficacy. Despite the many studies of LIA, final interpretation is hindered by methodological insufficiencies in most studies, especially because of differences in use of systemic analgesia between groups. However, LIA provides effective analgesia in the initial postoperative period after TKA in most randomized clinical trials even when combined with multimodal systemic analgesia. In contrast, LIA may have limited additional analgesic efficacy in THA when combined with a multimodal analgesic regimen. Postoperative administration of local anaesthetic in wound catheters did not provide additional analgesia when systemic analgesia was similar and LOS was not related to use of LIA with a fast-track set-up.
近年来,局部浸润镇痛(LIA)作为一种控制术后疼痛的技术,受到了越来越多的关注。我们对研究LIA用于全膝关节置换术(TKA)和全髋关节置换术(THA)的随机临床试验进行了系统评价,以评估LIA对术后早期疼痛治疗的镇痛效果。此外,还评估了伤口导管的镇痛效果及其对住院时间(LOS)的影响。本评价纳入了27项随机对照试验,其中756例接受THA手术的患者和888例接受TKA手术的患者。在THA中,当围手术期采用多模式镇痛方案时,在低偏倚风险的试验中,未报告LIA与安慰剂相比有额外的镇痛效果。与鞘内注射吗啡和硬膜外镇痛相比,据报道LIA具有相似或更好的镇痛效果。在TKA中,大多数试验报告,与接受安慰剂/未注射治疗的对照组相比,LIA可减轻疼痛并减少阿片类药物的用量。与股神经阻滞、硬膜外或鞘内注射吗啡相比,LIA在术后早期提供了相似或更好的镇痛效果,但由于组间全身镇痛方法不同,大多数试验存在较高的偏倚风险。总体而言,纳入的试验不支持使用伤口导管进行术后局部麻醉给药,且住院时间与镇痛效果无关。尽管对LIA进行了许多研究,但大多数研究的方法学不足阻碍了最终的解释,尤其是因为组间全身镇痛方法的差异。然而,在大多数随机临床试验中,即使联合多模式全身镇痛,LIA在TKA术后初期也能提供有效的镇痛。相比之下,当联合多模式镇痛方案时,LIA在THA中的额外镇痛效果可能有限。当全身镇痛相似且住院时间与快速康复模式下LIA的使用无关时,通过伤口导管进行术后局部麻醉给药并不能提供额外的镇痛效果。