Local infiltration analgesia versus peripheral nerve block anaesthesia in total knee arthroplasty: a pharmaco-economic comparison.
Cost comparison
Local infiltration analgesia
Pain management
Peripheral nerve block
Journal
BMC anesthesiology
ISSN: 1471-2253
Titre abrégé: BMC Anesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968535
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 03 2022
25 03 2022
Historique:
received:
09
01
2022
accepted:
14
03
2022
entrez:
26
3
2022
pubmed:
27
3
2022
medline:
29
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A superior analgesic method in perioperative pain-management of patients receiving total knee arthroplasty is the subject of controversial debate. Although higher cost-efficiency is claimed for the local infiltration analgesia (LIA), there is a lack of data on its costs compared to peripheral nerve block anaesthesia (PNBA). The goal of this study was to investigate the differences in immediate perioperative costs between the LIA and PNBA in treatment of patients receiving total knee arthroplasty. The comparison was conducted based on a randomized controlled clinical trial examining 40 patients with elective, primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA, 20 patients with LIA and 20 patients with PNBA). The analysis included surgical case costs, anaesthesiological case costs, material, costs of postoperative opioid requirements and catheter review visits for patients receiving PNBA. The overall mean costs for the LIA-group were 4328.72€ and 4368.12€ for the PNBA (p = 0.851). While there was no statistically significant difference in surgical case costs, the anaesthesiological costs were lower with the LIA procedure (1370.26€ vs. 1542.45€, p = 0.048). Material costs in the LIA group were 4.18€/patient and 94.64€/patient with the PNBA. Costs for postoperative opioid requirements showed no statistically significant difference between the two procedures. There is no relevant difference in immediate perioperative costs between LIA and PNBA. Shorter induction times lead to lower anaesthesiological case costs with the LIA. Overall economic aspects seem to play a less important role for determining an adequate procedure for perioperative pain management. The study was approved by the ethics-review-board of Charité Hospital Berlin (Ethikausschuss 4, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, on 16th February 2017) and registered with data safety authorities. Study patients provided written informed consent to participate in the trial. Study registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03114306 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A superior analgesic method in perioperative pain-management of patients receiving total knee arthroplasty is the subject of controversial debate. Although higher cost-efficiency is claimed for the local infiltration analgesia (LIA), there is a lack of data on its costs compared to peripheral nerve block anaesthesia (PNBA). The goal of this study was to investigate the differences in immediate perioperative costs between the LIA and PNBA in treatment of patients receiving total knee arthroplasty.
METHODS
The comparison was conducted based on a randomized controlled clinical trial examining 40 patients with elective, primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA, 20 patients with LIA and 20 patients with PNBA). The analysis included surgical case costs, anaesthesiological case costs, material, costs of postoperative opioid requirements and catheter review visits for patients receiving PNBA.
RESULTS
The overall mean costs for the LIA-group were 4328.72€ and 4368.12€ for the PNBA (p = 0.851). While there was no statistically significant difference in surgical case costs, the anaesthesiological costs were lower with the LIA procedure (1370.26€ vs. 1542.45€, p = 0.048). Material costs in the LIA group were 4.18€/patient and 94.64€/patient with the PNBA. Costs for postoperative opioid requirements showed no statistically significant difference between the two procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no relevant difference in immediate perioperative costs between LIA and PNBA. Shorter induction times lead to lower anaesthesiological case costs with the LIA. Overall economic aspects seem to play a less important role for determining an adequate procedure for perioperative pain management.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The study was approved by the ethics-review-board of Charité Hospital Berlin (Ethikausschuss 4, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, on 16th February 2017) and registered with data safety authorities. Study patients provided written informed consent to participate in the trial. Study registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03114306 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 35337268
doi: 10.1186/s12871-022-01620-w
pii: 10.1186/s12871-022-01620-w
pmc: PMC8953132
doi:
Substances chimiques
Analgesics, Opioid
0
Anesthetics, Local
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03114306']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
80Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Feb;474(2):495-516
pubmed: 26573322
J Knee Surg. 2019 Oct;32(10):953-959
pubmed: 30292173
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015 Aug;23(2):198-201
pubmed: 26321550
Anaesthesist. 2019 Dec;68(12):827-835
pubmed: 31690960
Br J Anaesth. 2009 Sep;103(3):428-33
pubmed: 19586958
Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2011 Feb;46(2):84-6
pubmed: 21312140
BMC Med. 2015 Jun 26;13:151
pubmed: 26116078
Surg Technol Int. 2019 Jun 25;35:301-310
pubmed: 31237342
Anesth Analg. 2001 Nov;93(5):1181-4
pubmed: 11682392
HSS J. 2018 Feb;14(1):47-49
pubmed: 29398994
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jul;139(7):1007-1013
pubmed: 31089805
JAMA Surg. 2017 Jan 1;152(1):90-95
pubmed: 27732710
J Med Econ. 2018 Jan;21(1):11-18
pubmed: 28828882
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2019 Apr;36(4):255-263
pubmed: 30562225