DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Operation theater with postoperative inpatient follow-up.
PATIENTS: The medical records of 315 patients who underwent sequential bilateral TKA were reviewed.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients who received intrathecal levobupicavaine 0.5% were compared with patients who received hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% with fentanyl 25 μg for spinal anesthesia.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the use of rescue analgesia (systemic opioids, conversion to general anesthesia) during surgery for both groups. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects of local anesthetics (hypotension and bradycardia) during surgery and morbidity related to spinal anesthesia (postoperative nausea, vomiting, and bleeding) during hospital stay.
MAIN RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients who received intrathecal levobupivacaine 0.5% (group L) were compared with 90 patients given hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% with fentanyl 25 μg (group B). The mean volume of levobupivacaine administered was 5.8 mL (range, 5.0-6.0 mL), and that of bupivacaine was 3.8 mL (range, 3.5-4.0 mL). Both groups achieved similar maximal sensory level of block (T6). The time to maximal height of sensory block was significantly shorter in group B than group L, 18.2 ± 4.5 vs 23.9 ± 3.8 minutes (P< .001). The time to motor block of Bromage 3 was also shorter in group B (8.7 ± 4.1 minutes) than group L (16.0 ± 4.5 minutes) (P< .001). Patients in group B required more anesthetic supplement than group L (P< .001). Hypotension and postoperative bleeding were significantly less common in group L than group B.
CONCLUSION: Levobupivacaine at a higher dosage provided longer duration of spinal anesthesia with better safety profile in sequential bilateral TKA.
METHODS: The record of all patients with cervical facet pain who were treated with RF neurotomy medial branch of dorsal rami between January 2016 and December 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Comparisons were made between patients who underwent RF neurotomy with multiple skin entry posterolateral approach and those who underwent RF neurotomy with single entry posterior parasagittal approach. The primary outcome was measured as the mean changes in numerical rating scale (NRS), and the secondary outcomes were duration and complications related to both approaches.
RESULTS: Thirty-one patients who underwent RF neurotomy via posterolateral approach were compared with 40 patients who underwent the procedure via posterior parasagittal approach. Both approaches showed a significant decrease in the NRS from baseline values. However, the differences in the NRS lowering effect at 3 and 12 months between these 2 approaches were not statistically significant. The duration of the procedure was significantly shorter with posterior parasagittal approach (44.13 ± 4.72 minutes vs 54.68 ± 7.39 minutes; P < 0.001). There were no serious complications encountered in both approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: With comparable efficacy and safety profile between the posterior parasagittal and the conventional posterolateral approaches, the former single skin entry approach offers the added advantage of being less time-consuming. Further randomized prospective studies are necessary to validate these findings.