1The Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Aug 16;99(16):1337-1344. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00571.
BACKGROUND: Intra-articular bupivacaine hydrochloride (HCl) infusion catheters and periarticular injections of liposomal bupivacaine are often used as postoperative local anesthetics. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacies of these local anesthetics following total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: This study was a superiority trial with a randomized, controlled, double-blinded design. Patients were randomly assigned to either delivery of bupivacaine HCl by the ON-Q* Pain Relief System pump (n = 96) or by an injection of Exparel (liposomal bupivacaine) (n = 104). The primary outcome of this study was cumulative narcotic consumption on postoperative days 0 through 3. Narcotic consumption data were collected retrospectively from in-hospital records while patients were in the hospital. Following discharge, narcotic consumption data were gathered from patient surveys, as were secondary outcomes measures. RESULTS: We did not identify greater narcotic use in the ON-Q* group compared with the Exparel group (p = 0.641). The mean difference between the groups was 0.5 morphine equivalent (95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.7 to +2.8), with the ON-Q* group consuming an average 10.4 morphine equivalents (95% CI = 8.7 to 12.0) compared with 10.9 (95% CI = 9.3 to 12.5) in the Exparel group. There were no significant differences between groups with regard to any of the secondary measures of pain with the exception of pain while walking and pain with physical therapy (p = 0.019 and p = 0.010, respectively), both of which showed an approximately 1-point difference in favor of the ON-Q* group on a visual analog scale (VAS). There were also no differences in the postoperative side effects, including nausea, constipation, or vomiting, or in the rates of study-related complications, patient satisfaction, or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Exparel did not have superior efficacy compared with the ON-Q* Pain Relief System as reflected by narcotic consumption, our primary outcome. There were small significant differences, in favor of the ON-Q* group, in 2 secondary measures of pain during activity, but these approximately 1-point VAS differences are unlikely to be clinically relevant. The choice of a local anesthetic modality should be based on a combination of safety, convenience, and cost considerations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
背景:关节内盐酸布比卡因(HCl)输注导管和关节周注射脂质体布比卡因常被用作术后局部麻醉剂。本研究的目的是比较这两种局部麻醉剂在全膝关节置换术后的疗效。
方法:本研究为一项具有随机、对照、双盲设计的优效性试验。患者随机分配至使用 ON-Q* Pain Relief System 泵(n=96)或注射 Exparel(脂质体布比卡因)(n=104)进行布比卡因 HCl 输注。本研究的主要结局是术后第 0 天至第 3 天的累积阿片类药物消耗量。在患者住院期间,从住院记录中回顾性收集阿片类药物使用数据。出院后,通过患者调查收集阿片类药物使用数据,并评估次要结局。
结果:与 Exparel 组相比,ON-Q组并未发现阿片类药物使用量更大(p=0.641)。两组之间的平均差异为 0.5 吗啡当量(95%置信区间[CI]=-1.7 至+2.8),ON-Q组平均消耗 10.4 吗啡当量(95%CI=8.7 至 12.0),而 Exparel 组平均消耗 10.9(95%CI=9.3 至 12.5)。除步行时疼痛和物理治疗时疼痛(p=0.019 和 p=0.010)外,两组在任何其他次要疼痛测量指标上均无显著差异,视觉模拟量表(VAS)显示 ON-Q*组在这两项指标上分别有大约 1 分的优势。两组在术后副作用(包括恶心、便秘或呕吐)或研究相关并发症、患者满意度或住院时间方面也无差异。
结论:在我们的主要结局即阿片类药物消耗方面,Exparel 并未显示出优于 ON-Q* Pain Relief System 的疗效。在 2 项次要活动时疼痛测量指标中,ON-Q*组有较小的显著优势,但这些 VAS 差异约为 1 分,不太可能具有临床意义。局部麻醉方式的选择应基于安全性、便利性和成本考虑的综合考虑。
证据水平:治疗性 1 级。有关证据水平的完整说明,请参阅作者说明。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017-1
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024-12-19
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023-11-13
Drugs Aging. 2020-1