Lee James Y J, Wu John C, Chatterji Rishi, Koueiter Denise, Maerz Tristan, Dutcheshen Nicholas, Wiater Brett P, Anderson Kyle, Wiater J Michael
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Ascension Providence, Michigan State University, Southfield, MI, USA.
JSES Int. 2023 Nov 18;8(2):282-286. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2023.10.008. eCollection 2024 Mar.
To compare the complications and efficacy of pain relief of the interscalene anesthetic block using either a single-injection (SI) vs. a continuous, indwelling catheter (CIC) for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery.
Patients undergoing primary, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair without concomitant open procedure or biceps tenodesis were prospectively enrolled by 4 fellowship-trained sports medicine and shoulder surgeons. Patients received either a SI or CIC preoperatively based on surgeon preference. Patients were contacted by phone to complete a standard questionnaire on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, 7, 14, and 28. Patients were asked to rate the efficacy of their subjective pain relief (scale of 0-10), document issues with the catheter, describe analgesic usage, and report pharmacological and medical complications. The primary outcome was measured as complication rate. Postoperative narcotic use, patient satisfaction, and visual analog scale pain scores were measured as secondary outcomes.
Seventy patients were enrolled, 33 CIC patients (13 male, 20 female, mean age 61 ± 8 years) and 37 SI patients (20 male, 17 female, mean age 59 ± 10 years). There were significantly more injection/insertion site complications in the CIC group (48%) vs. the SI group (11%, = .001). The incidence of motor weakness was higher in the CIC group on POD 1 ( = .034), but not at any subsequent time points. On POD 1, CIC patients had a clinically significantly lower pain score compared to SI (3.2 vs. 5.4; = .020). Similar scores were observed at subsequent time points until POD 28, when CIC again had a lower pain score (0.8 vs. 2.7; = .005). However, this did not reach clinical significance. All patients in both groups rated a satisfaction of 9 or 10 (scale 0-10) with the anesthesia provided by their nerve block.
CIC interscalene nerve blocks had an increased risk for injection site complications and minor complications in the immediate postoperative period when using the CIC for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair without any concomitant open procedures. CIC blocks demonstrated clinically significant superior pain relief on POD 1 but were equal to SI blocks at every time point thereafter. Superior pain relief of CIC at POD 28 was not clinically significant. CIC catheters do not appear to markedly decrease the use of postoperative narcotics. Despite this trend in complication rates and pain scores, all patients in both groups were satisfied with their nerve block.
比较在关节镜下肩袖修复手术中,使用单次注射(SI)与连续留置导管(CIC)进行肌间沟麻醉阻滞的并发症及疼痛缓解效果。
4名经过专科培训的运动医学和肩部外科医生前瞻性招募了接受初次关节镜下肩袖修复且未同时进行开放手术或肱二头肌固定术的患者。患者根据外科医生的偏好,术前接受SI或CIC麻醉。在术后第1、3、7、14和28天通过电话联系患者,以完成一份标准问卷。要求患者对主观疼痛缓解效果进行评分(0 - 10分),记录导管相关问题,描述镇痛药物使用情况,并报告药物和医疗并发症。主要结局指标为并发症发生率。术后麻醉药物使用情况、患者满意度和视觉模拟评分疼痛得分作为次要结局指标进行测量。
共纳入70例患者,33例接受CIC麻醉(13例男性,20例女性,平均年龄61±8岁),37例接受SI麻醉(20例男性,17例女性,平均年龄59±10岁)。CIC组注射/穿刺部位并发症显著多于SI组(48% vs. 11%,P = 0.001)。CIC组术后第1天运动无力的发生率更高(P = 0.034),但在随后的任何时间点均无差异。术后第1天,CIC组患者的疼痛评分在临床上显著低于SI组(3.2 vs. 5.4;P = 0.020)。在术后第28天之前的后续时间点观察到类似的评分,此时CIC组的疼痛评分再次较低(0.8 vs. 2.7;P = 0.005)。然而,这未达到临床显著性。两组所有患者对神经阻滞提供的麻醉满意度均为9或10分(0 - 10分制)。
在不进行任何同期开放手术的关节镜下肩袖修复手术中使用CIC时,CIC肌间沟神经阻滞在术后即刻发生注射部位并发症和轻微并发症的风险增加。CIC阻滞在术后第1天显示出临床上显著更好的疼痛缓解效果,但此后在每个时间点与SI阻滞相当。CIC在术后第28天更好的疼痛缓解效果未达到临床显著性。CIC导管似乎并未显著减少术后麻醉药物的使用。尽管在并发症发生率和疼痛评分上有此趋势,但两组所有患者对其神经阻滞均满意。