Amundson, Adam W.

Background: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a bupivacaine and meloxicam extended-release (ER) intra-articular injection for pain during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the real-world evidence with regard to analgesic efficacy of that medication has been limited. This randomized clinical trial investigated the efficacy of this new medication compared with our standard periarticular injection for postoperative analgesia after primary TKA. Methods: Eligible patients undergoing primary, unilateral TKA for osteoarthritis at our academic center were enrolled. Patients were blinded and were randomized 1:1 to the bupivacaine-meloxicam ER (ZYNRELEF) injection group or the standard injection (ropivacaine, ketorolac, epinephrine) control group. A standardized, multimodal analgesic pathway was implemented. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores and tallies of opioid consumption were collected. The primary outcome was the area under the curve (AUC) for NRS pain, adjusted for opioid consumption, over 72 hours. The minimal clinically important difference was considered to be 30%. Power analysis determined a minimum of 44 patients per group. The final groups included 53 patients in the experimental group and 48 patients in the control group. Results: Similar postoperative analgesia was observed, with an AUC for the adjusted NRS pain score up to 72 hours of 331 in the experimental group and 373 in the control group (p = 0.09). The mean maximum NRS pain scores were similar and reflected good, but not complete, analgesia. Scores were 3 to 5 on the day of the surgery, 4 to 6 on postoperative day (POD) 1, 5 to 6 on POD 2, and 4 to 5 on POD 3 (p > 0.05). One patient in the experimental group and 2 patients in the control group had early postoperative complications, none of which was deemed to be related to the analgesic choice. Conclusions: This randomized clinical trial demonstrated similar analgesia with a bupivacaine-meloxicam ER solution and a standard periarticular injection up to 72 hours after primary TKA. Cost, reimbursement, and convenience may ultimately prove to be more important than analgesic differences when choosing between these 2 effective options for managing postoperative pain. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The interscalene brachial plexus block is a well-described and widely used peripheral nerve block effective for regional anesthesia and analgesia in orthopedic surgical procedures of the shoulder, upper arm, and clavicle. Conventionally, an in-plane ultrasound-guided approach has been the technique of choice, while the out-of-plane approach, though less described, has been gaining anecdotal momentum among a growing number of proceduralists. This pro-con discussion highlights the out-of-plane approach’s goal of avoiding needle injuries to nerves that course through the middle scalene muscle and the in-plane approach’s benefit of whole-shaft needle visualization and increased distance away from the plexus on entry. We aim to provide a comprehensive comparison to guide proceduralists in their clinical decision-making.

AimsNonagenarians (aged 90 to 99 years) have experienced the fastest percent decile population growth in the USA recently, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of nonagenarians living with joint arthroplasties. As such, the number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in nonagenarians is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the mortality rate, implant survivorship, and complications of nonagenarians undergoing aseptic revision THAs and revision TKAs.MethodsOur institutional total joint registry was used to identify 96 nonagenarians who underwent 97 aseptic revisions (78 hips and 19 knees) between 1997 and 2018. The most common indications were aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture for both revision THAs and revision TKAs. Mean age at revision was 92 years (90 to 98), mean BMI was 27 kg/m2 (16 to 47), and 67% (n = 65) were female. Mean time between primary and revision was 18 years (SD 9). Kaplan-Meier survival was used for patient mortality, and compared to age- and sex-matched control populations. Reoperation risk was assessed using cumulative incidence with death as a competing risk. Mean follow-up was five years.ResultsMortality rates were 9%, 18%, 26%, and 62% at 90 days, one year, two years, and five years, respectively, but similar to control populations. There were 43 surgical complications and five reoperations, resulting in a cumulative incidence of reoperation of 4% at five years. Medical complications were common, with a cumulative incidence of 65% at 90 days. Revisions for periprosthetic fractures were associated with higher mortality and higher 90-day risk of medical complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening.ConclusionContemporary revision THAs and TKAs appeared to be relatively safe in selected nonagenarians managed with multidisciplinary teams. Cause of revision affected morbidity and mortality risks. While early medical and surgical complications were frequent, they seldom resulted in reoperation.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):649–656.

Aims Spinal anaesthesia has seen increased use in contemporary primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, controversy exists about the benefits of spinal in comparison to general anaesthesia in primary TKAs. This study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anaesthesia in primary TKAs from a single, high-volume academic centre. Methods We retrospectively identified 17,690 primary TKAs (13,297 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry, where 52% had general anaesthesia and 48% had spinal anaesthesia. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts with a mean age of 68 years (SD 10), 58% female (n = 7,669), and mean BMI of 32 kg/m2 (SD 7). Pain was evaluated using oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) and numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) data. Complications including 30- and 90-day readmissions were studied. Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on propensity score that included many patient and surgical factors. Mean follow-up was seven years (2 to 18). Results Patients treated with spinal anaesthesia required fewer postoperative OMEs (p < 0.001) and had lower NPRS scores (p < 0.001). Spinal anaesthesia also had fewer cases of altered mental status (AMS; odds ratio (OR) 1.3; p = 0.044), as well as 30-day (OR 1.4; p < 0.001) and 90-day readmissions (OR 1.5; p < 0.001). General anaesthesia was associated with increased risk of any revision (OR 1.2; p = 0.021) and any reoperation (1.3; p < 0.001). Conclusion In the largest single institutional report to date, we found that spinal anaesthesia was associated with significantly lower OME use, lower risk of AMS, and lower overall 30- and 90-day readmissions following primary TKAs. Additionally, spinal anaesthesia was associated with reduced risk of any revision and any reoperation after accounting for numerous patient and operative factors. When possible and safe, spinal anaesthesia should be considered in primary TKAs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1209–1214.

Background: The specific advantages of spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay, and postoperative outcomes associated with spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia in a large cohort of primary THAs from a single, high-volume academic institution. Methods: We retrospectively identified 13,730 primary THAs (11,319 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our total joint registry. Of these cases, 58% had general anesthesia and 42% had spinal anesthesia. The demographic characteristics were similar between groups, with mean age of 64 years, 51% female, and mean body mass index (BMI) of 31 kg/m 2 . Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on a propensity score that accounted for numerous patient and operative factors. The mean follow-up was 6 years. Results: Patients treated with spinal anesthesia had lower Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) scores (p < 0.001) and required fewer postoperative oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) at all time points evaluated (p < 0.001). Patients treated with spinal anesthesia also had shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.02), fewer altered mental status events (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; p = 0.02), and fewer intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (OR, 0.7; p = 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (p = 0.8), pulmonary embolism (p = 0.4), 30-day readmissions (p = 0.17), 90-day readmissions (p = 0.18), all-cause revisions (p = 0.17), or all-cause reoperations (p = 0.14). Conclusions: In this large, single-institution study, we found that spinal anesthesia was associated with reduced pain scores and OME use postoperatively. Furthermore, spinal anesthesia resulted in fewer altered mental status events and ICU admissions. These data favor the use of spinal anesthesia in primary THAs. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Propofol “frenzy” is considered a severe propofol-induced neuroexcitatory reaction involving nonepileptic spells of extremity thrashing, marked agitation, irregular eye movements, and impaired consciousness. Patients with propofol neuroexcitation present unique challenges for anesthesia providers due to underrecognition, lack of diagnostic tests, and differentiating from other comparable disorders that require medications that can exacerbate symptoms. We present a case of a healthy young patient whose postoperative course was complicated by propofol frenzy and functional limb paralysis following hip surgery with a spinal anesthetic and propofol sedation. This case highlights anesthesia considerations for propofol frenzy and discusses dexmedetomidine as a promising modality for prompt management.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesOptimizing perioperative analgesia for patients undergoing major lower‐extremity amputation remains a considerable challenge. The utility of liposomal bupivacaine as a component of peripheral nerve blockade for lower‐extremity amputation is unknown.MethodsWe conducted an observational study comparing three different perioperative analgesic techniques for adults undergoing major lower‐extremity amputation under general anesthesia between 2012 and 2017 at an academic medical center: (1) no regional anesthesia, (2) peripheral nerve blockade with standard bupivacaine, and (3) peripheral nerve blockade with a mixture of standard and liposomal bupivacaine. The primary outcome of cumulative opioid oral morphine milligram equivalent utilization in the first 72 hours postoperatively was compared across groups utilizing multivariable linear regression.ResultsA total of 631 unique anesthetics were included for 578 unique patients, including 416 (66%) without regional anesthesia, 131 (21%) with peripheral nerve blockade with a mixture of standard and liposomal bupivacaine, and 84 (13%) with peripheral nerve blockade with standard bupivacaine alone. Cumulative morphine equivalents were lower in those receiving peripheral nerve blockade with combined standard and liposomal bupivacaine compared with those not receiving regional anesthesia (multiplicative increase 0.67; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; P = 0.007). There were no significant differences in opioid utilization between peripheral nerve blockade groups (P = 0.59).ConclusionsPeripheral nerve blockade is associated with reduced opioid requirements after lower‐extremity amputation compared with general anesthesia alone. However, the incorporation of liposomal bupivacaine is not significantly different to blockade employing only standard bupivacaine.

Background: Spinal anesthesia provides several benefits for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but historically comes at the cost of slow and unpredictable return of lower-extremity motor function related to the use of long-acting local anesthetics. In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial we sought to determine if an alternative local anesthetic, mepivacaine, would allow more consistent return of motor function compared with low-dose bupivacaine spinal anesthesia during primary THA and TKA. Methods: This trial was conducted at a single academic institution. Prior to trial initiation an internal pilot study determined that 154 patients were required to achieve 80% power. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion with use of advanced computerized stratification based on procedure, age group, sex, and body mass index. Following the surgical procedure, motor function was assessed every 15 minutes in the nonoperative lower extremity according to the Bromage scale and discontinued once Bromage 0 was achieved (spontaneous movement at hip, knee, and ankle). Results: Return of lower-extremity function was more predictable in patients who received mepivacaine than in those who received low-dose bupivacaine. Among patients who received mepivacaine, 1% achieved motor function return beyond 5 hours compared with 11% of patients who received bupivacaine (p = 0.013). The mean time to return of lower-extremity motor function was 26 minutes quicker in patients who received mepivacaine (185 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 174 to 196 minutes) compared with low-dose bupivacaine (210 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 193 to 228 minutes) (p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in safety outcomes including pain scores, time to participation in physical therapy, incidence of orthostatic hypotension, urinary retention, or transient neurologic symptoms in patients receiving mepivacaine compared with low-dose bupivacaine. Conclusions: In patients undergoing primary THA and TKA, spinal anesthesia with mepivacaine allowed more consistent return of lower-extremity motor function compared with low-dose bupivacaine, without a concomitant increase in complications potentially associated with spinal anesthetics. This is particularly of value in an era of short-stay and outpatient surgical procedures. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: The efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been well established. However, there have been limited data for revision TKAs. The primary aim was to assess the impact of intravenous TXA on transfusion rates and symptomatic venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) in a large revision TKA cohort with or without intravenous TXA utilization. Methods: A retrospective review of revision TKAs performed from 2005 to 2014 was performed, identifying 2,951 procedures (2,219 patients), in which TXA was utilized in 1,144 procedures (39%). The mean age was 65 years with 52% female patients in the TXA revision group and 67 years with 52% female patients in the non-TXA revision group. Transfusion rates and symptomatic VTEs were the primary outcomes assessed. Comparisons were performed between cohorts, utilizing a unique propensity model to mitigate bias, on the basis of TXA use and subsequently for aseptic or septic revision etiology. Results: Significant reductions in transfusion rates with use of TXA were identified in revision TKAs overall (13% compared with 39%; p < 0.001 [adjusted relative risk, 1.7]), including revisions for both aseptic etiology (6% with TXA compared with 28% without TXA; p < 0.001) and septic etiology (31% with TXA compared with 54% without TXA; p < 0.001). The risk of a postoperative symptomatic VTE was not significantly different (adjusted p = 0.63) with use of TXA at 11 events (1.0%) compared with 24 events (1.3%) in the non-TXA group). Conclusions: Intravenous TXA significantly reduced transfusion rates in revision TKAs by approximately twofold, including cohorts revised for aseptic and septic etiologies. There was a very low rate of VTEs (1.2%) with no significant difference in the number of VTEs between groups after adjusting risk utilizing propensity modeling. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Debate surrounds the issue of whether peripheral nerve blockade or periarticular infiltration (PAI) should be employed within a contemporary, comprehensive multimodal analgesia pathway for total hip arthroplasty. We hypothesized that patients treated with a continuous posterior lumbar plexus block (PNB) would report less pain and consume less opioid medication than those treated with PAI. Methods: This investigator-initiated, independently funded, 3-arm randomized clinical trial (RCT) performed at a single high-volume institution compared postoperative analgesia interventions for elective, unilateral primary total hip arthroplasty: (1) PNB; (2) PAI with ropivacaine, ketorolac, and epinephrine (PAI-R); and (3) PAI with liposomal bupivacaine, ketorolac, and epinephrine (PAI-L) using computerized randomization. The primary outcome was maximum pain during the morning (06:00 to 12:00) of the first postoperative day (POD) on an ascending numeric rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10. Pairwise treatment comparisons were performed using the rank-sum test, with a p value of <0.017 indicating significance (Bonferroni adjusted). A sample size of 150 provided 80% power to detect a difference of 2.0 NRS units. Results: We included 159 patients (51, 54, and 54 patients in the PNB, PAI-R, and PAI-L groups, respectively). No significant differences were found with respect to the primary end point on the morning of the first POD (median, 3.0, 4.0, and 3.0, respectively; p > 0.033 for all). Opioid consumption was low and did not differ across groups at any intervals. Median maximum pain on POD 1 was 5.0, 5.5, and 4.0, respectively, and was lower for the PAI-L group than for the PAI-R group (p = 0.006). On POD 2, maximum pain (median, 3.5, 5.0, and 3.5, respectively) was lower for the PNB group (p = 0.014) and PAI-L group (p = 0.016) compared with the PAI-R group. The PAI-L group was not significantly different from the PNB group with respect to any outcomes: postoperative opioid use including rescue intravenous opioid medication, length of stay, and hospital adverse events, and 3-month follow-up data including any complication. Conclusions: In this RCT, we found a modest improvement with respect to analgesia in patients receiving PNB compared with those receiving PAI-R, but not compared with those who had PAI-L. Secondary analyses suggested that PNB or PAI-L provides superior postoperative analgesia compared with PAI-R. For primary total hip arthroplasty, a multimodal analgesic regimen including PNB or PAI-L provides opioid-limiting analgesia. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.