Additional periarticular catheter shows no superiority over single-shot local infiltration analgesia alone in unicondylar knee replacement.

Meier, Malin; Burkhardt, Patrick; Huth, Jochen; Best, Raymond; Thienpont, Emmanuel; Beckmann, Johannes (2021). Additional periarticular catheter shows no superiority over single-shot local infiltration analgesia alone in unicondylar knee replacement. Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy, 29(2), pp. 627-632. Springer-Verlag 10.1007/s00167-020-05981-y

[img] Text
Meier2020_Article_AdditionalPeriarticularCathete.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only until 18 April 2024.
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (481kB) | Request a copy

PURPOSE

Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) has attracted growing interest in recent years. To prolong the positive effects of LIA, a continuous intraarticular perfusion has been introduced in total knee arthroplasty with good clinical results. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate if similar results can be obtained with the use of a continuous periarticular perfusion in unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA).

METHODS

50 consecutively selected patients undergoing UKA received either a single-shot LIA (control group; n = 25) or single-shot LIA combined with a continuous postoperative periarticular perfusion for 2 postoperative days (intervention group, n = 25). VAS (visual analogue scale) for pain, pain medication consumption and range of flexion were recorded postoperatively for 6 days. The catheter was removed after 2 days.

RESULTS

Only minor advantages of using a continuous periarticular catheter could be shown. Patients in the intervention group showed significant lower VAS scores on day 1 and required significant less pain medication on day 6. Further, there was a significant difference in the range of flexion on day 3, on which patients of the intervention group were able to bend the knee joint on average by 12° more than patients of the control group. On the other days, any significant differences between the two groups were not observed.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the present study could not identify any superiority of a periarticular catheter over single-shot LIA in UKA. Because of additional costs and the potential risk of infection, the conclusion of this study is to not recommend adding a periarticular catheter to the single-shot LIA in UKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Orthopaedic, Plastic and Hand Surgery (DOPH) > Clinic of Orthopaedic Surgery

UniBE Contributor:

Meier, Malin Kristin

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0942-2056

Publisher:

Springer-Verlag

Language:

English

Submitter:

Kathrin Aeschlimann

Date Deposited:

20 Jan 2021 12:04

Last Modified:

20 Feb 2021 01:34

Publisher DOI:

10.1007/s00167-020-05981-y

PubMed ID:

32303801

Uncontrolled Keywords:

LIA Local infiltration analgesia Perioperative pain management Total knee replacement UKA Unicondylar knee arthroplasty

BORIS DOI:

10.48350/150491

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/150491

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback