Intraoperatively local infiltration anesthesia in hemiarthroplasty patients reduces the needs of opioids: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 96 patients in a fast-track hip fracture setting

Background and purpose — Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) is commonly used as a component in multimodal analgesia. Pain management directed towards hip fracture patients operated on with hemiarthroplasty is often based on knowledge regarding pain treatment following elective surgery. In this elderly patient population, it is of value to clarify whether adding local infiltration analgesia (LIA) to the postoperative analgesic regimen might reduce postoperative pain or have an opioid-reducing effect. Patients and methods — 96 hip fracture patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty in spinal anesthesia were included. All patients received a multimodal pain regimen and were randomized to receive either ropivacaine or placebo. All patients received morphine depot-opioid and morphine as rescue medication postoperatively. The primary endpoint was pain during mobilization in the recovery unit on the day of surgery. Secondary endpoints were pain during mobilization the day after surgery and postoperative opioid requirements on the first postoperative day. Results — The levels of pain (NRS) during mobilization both in the recovery unit and on the day after surgery were similar in the 2 groups, with median 4 and 0.5 in the placebo group and median 3.5 and 1 in the ropivacaine group respectively. Total consumption of opioids on day 0 and day 1 were 4.6 mg lower in the ropivacaine group (p = 0.04). Pain during mobilization was registered for only 44 of 96 patients for several reasons, including lack of mobilization. Interpretation — There were similar pain scores in both the local infiltration and placebo group postoperatively. However, substantially reduced opioid consumption was found in patients receiving LIA.</jats:p

A Web-Based Communication Tool for Postoperative Follow-up and Pain Assessment at Home After Primary Knee Arthroplasty: Feasibility and Usability Study (Preprint)

BACKGROUND We report the use of an electronic tool, Eir (Eir Solutions AS, Norway), for symptom registration at home after knee arthroplasty. This electronic tool was used in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing 3 different analgesic regimens with respect to postoperative pain and side effects. OBJECTIVE The aim of this substudy was to investigate this electronic tool for symptom registrations at home with respect to usability (ie, how easy it was to use) and feasibility (ie, how well the tool served its purpose). METHODS To assess the tool's usability, all participants were invited to fill out the 10-item System Usability Scale (SUS) after using the tool for 8 days. To assess feasibility, data regarding the participants' ability to use the tool with or without assistance or reminders were collected qualitatively on a daily basis during the study period. RESULTS A total of 134 patients completed the RCT. Data concerning feasibility of the web-based tool were collected from all 134 patients. The SUS was completed by 119 of the 134 patients; 70.2% (94/134) of the patients managed to use the tool at home without any technical support. All technical challenges were related to the login procedure or internet access. The mean SUS score was 89.6 (median 92.5; range 22.5-100). CONCLUSIONS This study showed high feasibility and high usability of the Eir web tool. The received reports gave the necessary information needed for both research data and clinical follow-up. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02604446; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02604446 </sec

A Web-Based Communication Tool for Postoperative Follow-up and Pain Assessment at Home After Primary Knee Arthroplasty: Feasibility and Usability Study

Background We report the use of an electronic tool, Eir (Eir Solutions AS, Norway), for symptom registration at home after knee arthroplasty. This electronic tool was used in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing 3 different analgesic regimens with respect to postoperative pain and side effects. Objective The aim of this substudy was to investigate this electronic tool for symptom registrations at home with respect to usability (ie, how easy it was to use) and feasibility (ie, how well the tool served its purpose). Methods To assess the tool's usability, all participants were invited to fill out the 10-item System Usability Scale (SUS) after using the tool for 8 days. To assess feasibility, data regarding the participants' ability to use the tool with or without assistance or reminders were collected qualitatively on a daily basis during the study period. Results A total of 134 patients completed the RCT. Data concerning feasibility of the web-based tool were collected from all 134 patients. The SUS was completed by 119 of the 134 patients; 70.2% (94/134) of the patients managed to use the tool at home without any technical support. All technical challenges were related to the login procedure or internet access. The mean SUS score was 89.6 (median 92.5; range 22.5-100). Conclusions This study showed high feasibility and high usability of the Eir web tool. The received reports gave the necessary information needed for both research data and clinical follow-up. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02604446; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02604446 </jats:sec

Patient-reported outcome after primary and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty: 1-year follow-up of 3,559 primary and 406 revision THAs in an institutional registry

Background and purpose — Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision THA are important information in the preoperative shared decision-making process. We present 1-year results on pain, function, and quality of life following primary and revision THA. Patients and methods — From 2010 to 2018, 3,559 primary THA and 406 revision THAs were included in our institutional quality registry. PROMs were registered preoperatively, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery, numeric rating scale (0–10) for pain during mobilization and at rest, healthrelated quality of life (EQ-5D), and a hip-specific physical function score (HOOS-PS). 2 anchor questions were asked 1 year after surgery concerning joint function and willingness to go through surgery again. Results — There were statistically significant improvements in all PROMs at the 3-month follow-up in both groups. All PROMs improved more in the primary group relative to the revision group. 1 year after surgery, pain during mobilization was reduced with a mean change of 5.1 (SD 2.6) for primary THA and 2.9 (SD 3.0) for revision THA. 93% of primary THA patients reported both better function 1 year after surgery and that they would have gone through surgery again, compared with 78% and 79% in the revision THA group. Interpretation — Primary THA patients reported better function and more pain relief than the revision THA group 1 year after surgery. Pain during mobilization shows the most marked improvement in both groups, which is important preoperative information for patients.</jats:p

A randomized controlled trial on maximal strength training in 60 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: Implementing maximal strength training into clinical practice

Background and purpose — Total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients have reduced muscle strength after rehabilitation. In a previous efficacy trial, 4 weeks’ early supervised maximal strength training (MST) increased muscle strength in unilateral THA patients <65 years. We have now evaluated muscle strength in an MST and in a conventional physiotherapy (CP) group after rehabilitation in regular clinical practice. Patients and methods — 60 primary THA patients were randomized to MST or CP between August 2015 and February 2016. The MST group trained at 85–90% of their maximal capacity in leg press and abduction of the operated leg (4 × 5 repetitions), 3 times a week at a municipal physiotherapy institute up to 3 months postoperatively. The CP group followed a training program designed by their respective physiotherapist, mainly exercises performed with low or no external loads. Patients were tested pre- 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Primary outcomes were abduction and leg press strength at 3 months. Other parameters evaluated were pain, 6-min walk test, Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) Physical Function Short-form score. Results — 27 patients in each group completed the intervention. MST patients were substantially stronger in leg press and abduction than CP patients 3 (43 kg and 3 kg respectively) and 6 months (30 kg and 3 kg respectively) postoperatively (p ≤ 0.002). 1 year postoperatively, no intergroup differences were found. No other statistically significant intergroup differences were found. Interpretation — MST increases muscle strength more than CP in THA patients up to 6 months postoperatively, after 3 months’ rehabilitation in clinical practice. It was well tolerated by the THA patients and seems feasible to conduct within regular clinical practice

The extent of first-time THA revision is not associated with patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up: a study of 426 aseptic revisions

Background and purpose: Studies evaluating pain and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) related to type of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are sparse. Our aim was to compare pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient satisfaction among different types of aseptic rTHA at 1-year follow-up. Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective study from an institutional registry with 426 primary THAs scheduled for rTHA in a fast-track setting between 2012 and 2021. Revisions were grouped by 4 types of surgery: head and/or liner exchange, cup revision, stem revision, and cup and stem revision. Pain during mobilization and at rest (NRS 0–10), physical function (HOOS-PS and HHS) and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) were registered preoperatively, at 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was surveyed at the 1-year follow-up by 2 questions related to hip function and willingness to undergo the same surgery. Results: With a response rate of 85%, all outcomes improved in the 4 groups but there were neither statistical nor clinical differences between types of rTHA at 1-year follow-up. NRS pain during mobilization improved overall by 2.7 (95% confidence interval 2.3–3.1) until 1-year follow-up, both being statistically significant and clinically relevant. The improvements were mainly seen at the 3-month follow-up, with minor progress observed at 1 year. About 80% reported improved hip function and willingness to undergo the surgery again at the 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: Significant improvements in NRS pain and PROMS were found in all groups after rTHA, with no group differences at 1 year. This is relevant preoperative information for both clinicians and patients eligible for rTHA

Can KOOS-PS be replaced with a simple anchor question in patients after total knee arthroplasty?: an agreement study of 2,478 primary surgeries

Background and purpose: Physical function and pain are the most important outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). These can be evaluated by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), or by an anchor question. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate whether a simple anchor question can replace KOOS-PS in assessing postoperative knee function until 1-year follow-up, evaluated by analyzing the agreement between the 2 methods using the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Secondary aims were pain (NRS) at rest and during mobilization. Methods: This is a diagnostic accuracy study with primary TKAs performed between 2010 and 2022. The surgeries were categorized as improved (I) or worsened (W) based on a dichotomized anchor question related to self-perceived change in physical function, and the dichotomized change in KOOS-PS until 1-year follow-up. This led to 4 groups: (II, IW, WI, and WW). Results: Agreement was found with a DOR of 11.3 (CI 7.9–16.2). 2,335 (94%) reported improved function on the anchor question and 143 (6%) worsened function. Among those with improved anchor 2,132 (91%) had improved KOOS-PS, but among those with worsened anchor only 74 (52%) had worsened KOOS-PS. Pain at 1-year follow-up was lower in the groups reporting improved anchor. Conclusion: The KOOS-PS can be replaced with an anchor question to assess change in function until 1 year. However, the KOOS-PS might be a valuable supplement in patients reporting worsened anchor as only half of those had worsened KOOS-PS