Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
The Bone and Joint Center, Magee Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Aug;33(8):2460-2464. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.014. Epub 2018 Mar 16.
BACKGROUND: The use of multimodal pain regimens has been shown to be an effective technique for the treatment of postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty. Periarticular injections, of both short-acting and long-acting anesthetics, have emerged as an additional method of providing significant improvement in postoperative pain relief. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of periarticular injection using long-acting vs short-acting preparations. METHODS: A randomized, prospective study of 80 consecutive patients was performed comparing liposomal bupivacaine vs plain bupivacaine periarticular injection. The primary outcomes included pain relief, total narcotic usage, and completion of physical therapy goals, specifically range of motion. RESULTS: No significant improvements were noted between liposomal bupivacaine and plain bupivacaine injection groups in overall pain reduction, range of motion, or total narcotic usage. At 24 hours, small statistically significant differences in physical therapy pain scores were noted with liposomal bupivacaine vs plain bupivacaine and control patients, but these differences did not persist at later time points. Both preparations demonstrated statistically significant improvements in range of motion when compared to historical controls, but no differences were noted between preparations. CONCLUSION: Overall, minimal significant differences were noted between liposomal bupivacaine and plain bupivacaine at early and late time points. Both preparations of periarticular injection demonstrated superiority over control pain regimens but were relatively equivalent to one another in direct comparison.
背景:多模式疼痛方案的使用已被证明是治疗全膝关节置换术后疼痛的有效技术。关节周围注射短效和长效麻醉剂已成为提供术后疼痛缓解的另一种方法。本研究的目的是比较关节周围注射长效和短效制剂的疗效。
方法:对 80 例连续患者进行随机、前瞻性研究,比较脂质体布比卡因与普通布比卡因关节周围注射。主要结果包括疼痛缓解、总麻醉剂使用量和物理治疗目标的完成情况,特别是活动范围。
结果:在总体疼痛缓解、活动范围或总麻醉剂使用量方面,脂质体布比卡因和普通布比卡因注射组之间没有显著改善。在 24 小时时,脂质体布比卡因与普通布比卡因和对照组患者的物理治疗疼痛评分有较小的统计学显著差异,但这些差异在以后的时间点没有持续存在。与历史对照组相比,两种制剂在活动范围方面均有统计学显著改善,但在制剂之间没有差异。
结论:总的来说,在早期和晚期,脂质体布比卡因和普通布比卡因之间只有微小的显著差异。关节周围注射的两种制剂均优于对照组的疼痛方案,但在直接比较中彼此相对等效。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023-11-13
Nanoscale Res Lett. 2020-1-16
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017-1
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017-1
Orthop Clin North Am. 2015-10