Terkawi, Abdullah Sulieman

Background The analgesic effectiveness of contemporary motor-sparing nerve blocks used in combination for analgesia in total knee arthroplasty is unclear. This network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of adding single-injection or continuous adductor canal block (ACB) with or without infiltration of the interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee (iPACK) to intraoperative local infiltration analgesia (LIA), compared to LIA alone, after total knee arthroplasty. Methods Randomized trials examining the addition of single-injection or continuous ACB with or without single-injection block at the iPACK to LIA for total knee arthroplasty were considered. The two primary outcomes were area-under-the-curve pain scores over 24 to 48 h and postoperative function at greater than 24 h. Secondary outcomes included rest pain scores at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h; opioid consumption (from 0 to 24 h and from 25 to 48 h); and incidence of nausea/vomiting. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach. Results A total of 27 studies (2,317 patients) investigating the addition of (1) single-injection ACB, (2) continuous ACB, (3) single-injection ACB and single-injection block at the iPACK, and (4) continuous ACB and single-injection block at the iPACK to LIA, as compared to LIA alone, were included. For area-under-the-curve 24- to 48-h pain, the addition of continuous ACB with single-injection block at the iPACK displayed the highest P -score probability (89%) of being most effective for pain control. The addition of continuous ACB without single-injection block at the iPACK displayed the highest P -score probability (87%) of being most effective for postoperative function. Conclusions The results suggest that continuous ACB, but not single-injection ACB and/or single-injection block at the iPACK, provides statistically superior analgesia when added to LIA for total knee arthroplasty compared to LIA alone. However, the magnitude of these additional analgesic benefits is clinically questionable. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

AbstractBackgroundChronic headaches are the second most prevalent disease and second most common cause for years lived with disability worldwide. Occipital neuralgia can cause headaches or be present in addition to other more prevalent causes of headache. If these headaches fail to respond to conservative and pharmacological therapy, physicians proceed to more invasive treatments, starting with infiltration of the greater occipital nerve with local anesthetic with or without corticosteroids, followed by nerve ablation or stimulation. Occipital nerve stimulation gained more popularity as the technology improved and more pain physicians received training on interventional procedures.MethodsIn this manuscript, we are presenting our experience with ultrasound-guided implant of occipital nerve stimulators using peripheral nerve stimulator systems. After confirming appropriateness of treatment by a successful occipital nerve block (i.e., resulting in >50% relief in patients’ pain intensity), we implanted five stimulator systems in three patients (two bilateral).ResultsWe followed these patients for an average of eight months, and the average pain reduction was ∼50%. We did not observe any adverse events during or immediately after surgery. One patient developed an adverse reaction to the adhesive of the battery transmitter, but it was not severe enough to stop her from using the stimulator.ConclusionsConsidering the ease of implant and minimal side effects, implant of peripheral nerve stimulators to stimulate the occipital nerve is a promising treatment modality for patients with chronic headache who present with features of occipital neuralgia. However, wider use of this treatment modality is subject to further studies.