Patient Complications after Interscalene Block: A Retrospective Comparison of Liposomal Bupivacaine to Nonliposomal Bupivacaine.
Journal
Anesthesiology research and practice
ISSN: 1687-6962
Titre abrégé: Anesthesiol Res Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101532982
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
20
01
2020
revised:
17
02
2020
accepted:
27
02
2020
entrez:
14
4
2020
pubmed:
14
4
2020
medline:
14
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to investigate if the addition of liposome bupivacaine (LB) to an interscalene block (ISB) had an effect on the number of patients with surgical- or block-related complications. This was a single-center retrospective chart view performed by identifying patients who received an ISB from January 1, 2014, through April 26, 2018, at the University of Minnesota. 1,518 patients were identified who received an ISB (LB = 784, nonliposomal bupivacaine = 734). Patients were divided into two groups those who did receive liposome bupivacaine in their ISB and those who did not receive liposome bupivacaine in their ISB. Medical records were individually reviewed for surgical procedure, block medications, complications related to the block or surgical procedure, phone calls to the healthcare system for issues related to opioids or pain within 3 and within 30 days, readmissions within 30 days, and emergency room visits for complications within 3 and 30 days. There was no significant difference in the number of patients with surgical or anesthetic complications. Only phone calls for pain within 3 days were significantly different. The LB group had 3.2% of patients call compared to 5.6% in the nonliposomal bupivacaine group (aOR = 1.71 (95% CI: 1.04-2.87), The use of LB in an ISB demonstrated no significant difference compared to nonliposomal bupivacaine in numbers of complications, emergency room visits, and readmissions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to investigate if the addition of liposome bupivacaine (LB) to an interscalene block (ISB) had an effect on the number of patients with surgical- or block-related complications.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a single-center retrospective chart view performed by identifying patients who received an ISB from January 1, 2014, through April 26, 2018, at the University of Minnesota. 1,518 patients were identified who received an ISB (LB = 784, nonliposomal bupivacaine = 734). Patients were divided into two groups those who did receive liposome bupivacaine in their ISB and those who did not receive liposome bupivacaine in their ISB. Medical records were individually reviewed for surgical procedure, block medications, complications related to the block or surgical procedure, phone calls to the healthcare system for issues related to opioids or pain within 3 and within 30 days, readmissions within 30 days, and emergency room visits for complications within 3 and 30 days.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in the number of patients with surgical or anesthetic complications. Only phone calls for pain within 3 days were significantly different. The LB group had 3.2% of patients call compared to 5.6% in the nonliposomal bupivacaine group (aOR = 1.71 (95% CI: 1.04-2.87),
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The use of LB in an ISB demonstrated no significant difference compared to nonliposomal bupivacaine in numbers of complications, emergency room visits, and readmissions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32280340
doi: 10.1155/2020/6704303
pmc: PMC7139877
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
6704303Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Jacob L. Hutchins et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
J. Hutchins is a speaker, consultant, and has received research funds from Pacira Pharmaceuticals; he is a consultant and owns stock with Insitu Biologics, is a consultant, speaker, and owns stock for Acel RX, a speaker for Sonosite, a consultant for Worrell, a consultant for Johnson and Johnson, and a consultant, speaker, and has received research funds from Avanos. AB is a consultant for Avanos and Pacira Pharmaceuticals. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Phys Sportsmed. 2013 Sep;41(3):77-84
pubmed: 24113705
J Pain Res. 2018 Sep 18;11:1889-1900
pubmed: 30271195
J Clin Anesth. 2020 May;61:109654
pubmed: 31759813
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jun;27(6):993-997
pubmed: 29361411
Orthopedics. 2002 Jan;25(1):45-8
pubmed: 11811241
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2012 Sep-Oct;37(5):490-4
pubmed: 22705952
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008 Apr;25(4):267-74
pubmed: 18053314
JSES Open Access. 2018 Jun 22;2(3):165-168
pubmed: 30675589
Arthroscopy. 1993;9(3):295-300
pubmed: 8323615
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Sep-Oct;15(5):567-70
pubmed: 16979050
J Pain Res. 2016 Apr 21;9:233-40
pubmed: 27186075
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2018 Nov 02;2(11):e068
pubmed: 30656259
Anesthesiology. 2001 Oct;95(4):875-80
pubmed: 11605927
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2018;50(3):215-220
pubmed: 29931665
Anesthesiology. 1994 Dec;81(6):1332-40
pubmed: 7992900
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2018 Jul;47(7):
pubmed: 30075039
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2018 Dec 04;2(12):e093
pubmed: 30680371
Anesth Analg. 2015 May;120(5):1114-29
pubmed: 25822923
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 May/Jun;42(3):334-341
pubmed: 28157791
JAMA Surg. 2017 Jun 21;152(6):e170504
pubmed: 28403427
Anesth Analg. 1991 Apr;72(4):498-503
pubmed: 2006740
Anesth Analg. 2010 Sep;111(3):617-23
pubmed: 20686013
Phys Sportsmed. 2018 Nov;46(4):466-470
pubmed: 30021075
Reg Anesth. 1995 Jan-Feb;20(1):62-8
pubmed: 7727331
Korean J Pain. 2015 Jan;28(1):45-51
pubmed: 25589946