Effect of Preoperative Gabapentin With a Concomitant Adductor Canal Block on Pain and Opioid Usage After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
adductor canal block
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
gabapentin
narcotic
opioid
postoperative pain
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
entrez:
13
3
2019
pubmed:
13
3
2019
medline:
13
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
An adductor canal block (ACB) and preoperative oral gabapentin have each been shown to decrease postoperative pain scores and opioid usage in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. This study evaluated the efficacy of preoperative gabapentin on postoperative analgesia in patients who received an ACB. We hypothesized that patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with an ACB who utilized a single dose of preoperative oral gabapentin would have decreased pain and opioid consumption in the 24 to 72 hours after surgery compared with patients who did not utilize gabapentin. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Between January and October 2016, patients at a single institution who underwent ACL reconstruction and received an ACB were identified. Patients who underwent surgery before May 2016 were placed in the control group, and patients seen after May 2016 received a preoperative dose of gabapentin and were placed in the gabapentin group. All patients completed a pain log via a smartphone application to record pain scores and opioid usage after surgery. A total of 74 patients were identified: 41 in the gabapentin group and 33 in the control group. There were no significant differences between groups in demographics and operative characteristics. There were no differences in pain scores on postoperative day 1 (gabapentin vs control: 5.53 vs 5.56; Preoperative gabapentin did not reduce pain scores or opioid usage in patients who received an ACB and underwent ACL reconstruction in this retrospective cohort study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
An adductor canal block (ACB) and preoperative oral gabapentin have each been shown to decrease postoperative pain scores and opioid usage in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS
OBJECTIVE
This study evaluated the efficacy of preoperative gabapentin on postoperative analgesia in patients who received an ACB. We hypothesized that patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with an ACB who utilized a single dose of preoperative oral gabapentin would have decreased pain and opioid consumption in the 24 to 72 hours after surgery compared with patients who did not utilize gabapentin.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS
METHODS
Between January and October 2016, patients at a single institution who underwent ACL reconstruction and received an ACB were identified. Patients who underwent surgery before May 2016 were placed in the control group, and patients seen after May 2016 received a preoperative dose of gabapentin and were placed in the gabapentin group. All patients completed a pain log via a smartphone application to record pain scores and opioid usage after surgery.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 74 patients were identified: 41 in the gabapentin group and 33 in the control group. There were no significant differences between groups in demographics and operative characteristics. There were no differences in pain scores on postoperative day 1 (gabapentin vs control: 5.53 vs 5.56;
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative gabapentin did not reduce pain scores or opioid usage in patients who received an ACB and underwent ACL reconstruction in this retrospective cohort study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30859108
doi: 10.1177/2325967119828357
pii: 10.1177_2325967119828357
pmc: PMC6402063
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2325967119828357Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: S.K. has received educational support from Arthrex and Smith & Nephew and has received consulting and speaking fees from Smith & Nephew. J.X. has received educational support from Arthrex, Linvatec, and VisionScope Technologies; has received consulting fees from Arthrex, Linvatec, and Trice Medical; has received speaking fees from Arthrex; and receives royalties from Arthrex. AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
Can J Anaesth. 2004 Dec;51(10):986-9
pubmed: 15574547
Anesth Analg. 2005 May;100(5):1394-9, table of contents
pubmed: 15845693
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 May-Jun;31(3):237-47
pubmed: 16701190
Pain. 2006 Dec 15;126(1-3):91-101
pubmed: 16846695
Pain. 2009 Jul;144(1-2):20-7
pubmed: 19362417
Anesthesiology. 2010 Nov;113(5):1144-62
pubmed: 20966667
Pain Med. 2011 Apr;12(4):657-67
pubmed: 21392250
Indian J Anaesth. 2011 Mar;55(2):104-10
pubmed: 21712863
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013 Jul;30(7):422-8
pubmed: 23549123
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013 Nov-Dec;38(6):526-32
pubmed: 24121608
Anesthesiology. 2014 Mar;120(3):540-50
pubmed: 24401769
Braz J Anesthesiol. 2013 Nov-Dec;63(6):483-91
pubmed: 24565346
Popul Health Manag. 2014 Dec;17(6):372-87
pubmed: 25075734
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2013 Sep;1(1):18-22
pubmed: 25207278
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2015 Jan-Feb;40(1):3-10
pubmed: 25376972
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Feb;43(2):331-6
pubmed: 25466410
J Clin Anesth. 2015 Feb;27(1):39-44
pubmed: 25468584
J Knee Surg. 2015 Oct;28(5):390-4
pubmed: 25635874
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Sep;44(9):2435-47
pubmed: 26684664