Multidimensional pain assessment and opioid use after total knee arthroplasty: continuous vs single-injection regional vs systemic analgesia.

IF 3.4 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Pain Reports Pub Date : 2025-03-18 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1097/PR9.0000000000001257
Michael A Harnik, Oskar Oswald, Markus Huber, Debora M Hofer, Marcus Komann, Johannes Dreiling, Ulrike M Stamer
{"title":"Multidimensional pain assessment and opioid use after total knee arthroplasty: continuous vs single-injection regional vs systemic analgesia.","authors":"Michael A Harnik, Oskar Oswald, Markus Huber, Debora M Hofer, Marcus Komann, Johannes Dreiling, Ulrike M Stamer","doi":"10.1097/PR9.0000000000001257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Effective pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is essential for recovery. Continuous peripheral nerve blocks (PNBc) are often believed to provide superior pain relief compared with single-injection peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs). However, multidimensional pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have not been extensively studied.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Based on registry data, this study compared pain intensities summarized as a pain composite score (PCS) and postoperative opioid use between PNBc and PNBs nerve blocks in patients undergoing TKA, and evaluated additional PROs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 4,328 adults undergoing TKA enrolled in the PAIN OUT registry (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02083835) were analyzed. Patients were categorized into general anesthesia (GA) or spinal anesthesia (SA), with subgroups general anesthesia only (GA-o) or spinal anesthesia only (SA-o), and combinations with single-injection PNB (GA&PNBs and SA&PNBs) or continuous PNB via catheter (GA&PNBc and SA&PNBc). The primary end point was PCS, summarizing pain intensities and time in severe pain during the first 24 hours. Secondary end points included opioid use and additional PROs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The use of GA&PNBc was associated with a higher PCS (+0.5 [0.0-0.9], <i>P</i> = 0.035) compared with GA&PNBs, while PCS was similar between SA&PNBs and SA&PNBc. Opioid use was more frequent in GA&PNBc (+20.3%) and SA&PNBc (+50.8%) compared with the respective PNBs groups (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Patient-reported outcomes were higher in PNBc groups (median score 3.2 vs 2.7-2.9 in other groups; <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Continuous PNBc showed no clear advantage over PNBs in pain relief, opioid use, or further PROs. Future research should incorporate comprehensive PROs to better evaluate analgesic techniques in TKA.</p>","PeriodicalId":52189,"journal":{"name":"Pain Reports","volume":"10 2","pages":"e1257"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11922405/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Effective pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is essential for recovery. Continuous peripheral nerve blocks (PNBc) are often believed to provide superior pain relief compared with single-injection peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs). However, multidimensional pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have not been extensively studied.

Objective: Based on registry data, this study compared pain intensities summarized as a pain composite score (PCS) and postoperative opioid use between PNBc and PNBs nerve blocks in patients undergoing TKA, and evaluated additional PROs.

Methods: Data from 4,328 adults undergoing TKA enrolled in the PAIN OUT registry (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02083835) were analyzed. Patients were categorized into general anesthesia (GA) or spinal anesthesia (SA), with subgroups general anesthesia only (GA-o) or spinal anesthesia only (SA-o), and combinations with single-injection PNB (GA&PNBs and SA&PNBs) or continuous PNB via catheter (GA&PNBc and SA&PNBc). The primary end point was PCS, summarizing pain intensities and time in severe pain during the first 24 hours. Secondary end points included opioid use and additional PROs.

Results: The use of GA&PNBc was associated with a higher PCS (+0.5 [0.0-0.9], P = 0.035) compared with GA&PNBs, while PCS was similar between SA&PNBs and SA&PNBc. Opioid use was more frequent in GA&PNBc (+20.3%) and SA&PNBc (+50.8%) compared with the respective PNBs groups (P < 0.001). Patient-reported outcomes were higher in PNBc groups (median score 3.2 vs 2.7-2.9 in other groups; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Continuous PNBc showed no clear advantage over PNBs in pain relief, opioid use, or further PROs. Future research should incorporate comprehensive PROs to better evaluate analgesic techniques in TKA.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Reports
Pain Reports Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Multidimensional pain assessment and opioid use after total knee arthroplasty: continuous vs single-injection regional vs systemic analgesia. Risk factors associated with the development and persistence of pain in adolescents: an international Delphi study. Conditioned pain modulation elicited through manual pressure techniques on the cervical spine: a crossover study. Partner responses to pain among male partners of women with provoked vestibulodynia-a cross-sectional study. The role of androgens on experimental pain sensitivity: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1