Read the full article at healio.com.

“Usually for hip arthroscopy, the anesthesiologist performs a type of neuraxial block; in this case, a femoral nerve block or fascia iliaca block,” said Lisa Reisinger, MD, a research fellow at HSS and one of the authors of the study. “With these blocks, there is an adverse effect of quadriceps weakness leading to elevated fall risk and prolonged hospital stay.”

“PENG and LFCN are both motor-sparing blocks, but neither provide adequate pain relief for hip arthroscopy on their own,” Dr. Reisinger explained. “The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether these nerve blocks performed at the same time would lead to adequate analgesia with opioid-sparing effects and earlier discharge. While these are two commonly used techniques, it is not yet common to use them together for hip arthroscopy.”

Twenty-six patients who received only the PENG block and 86 patients who received both the PENG and LFCN blocks were matched to a control group of 112 patients who received only a neuraxial block using propensity score matching (1:1) and a caliper of 0.2, to match patients by American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, gender, and age.

The primary examined outcome was average opioid consumption in the PACU. Secondary outcomes included maximum numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score, intravenous (IV) rescue analgesia, and PACU readiness for discharge times.

The combination of a PENG block and LFCN block showed a significant reduction in average opioid consumption (more than 40% less) and earlier PACU discharge times (more than 1.7 hours earlier) compared with neuraxial alone.

There were also significantly lower severe pain scores in the PENG/LFCN group than the neuraxial alone group, which was demonstrated with the PENG/LFCN group using significantly less IV rescue analgesia and having lower maximum NRS pain scores. The PENG block alone did not demonstrate a significant pain relief benefit compared with the control group, although it did decrease the amount of time to discharge.

These results demonstrate that using both the PENG and LFCN nerve blocks may provide the best pain relief, reduce opioid use, and reduce discharge times compared with PENG block alone or neuraxial analgesia alone.

“Patients are looking for alternatives to minimize narcotic use after surgery,” said David Kim, MD, an anesthesiologist at HSS and lead author of the study. “This study offers an opioid-sparing alternative for ambulatory hip arthroscopy.”

“The next stage of research should be focusing on whether PENG/LFCN combination provides any longer-term outcome benefits to our patients, such as functional outcomes, post-discharge opioid consumption, etc.,” said Jiabin Liu, MD, an anesthesiologist and one of the authors of the study.

“Most blocks have a duration of 24 to 48 hours,” Dr. Kim added. “The next focus should be on methods for lengthening the duration beyond that.”

Reference

1. Lisa Reisinger, MD, Genewoo Hong, MD, JD, Edward Lin, MD, Sang Jo Kim, MD, Jonathan Beathe, MD, Douglas Wetmore, MD, Jiabin Liu, MD, David H Kim, MD. “Pericapsular nerve group block combined with a lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block decreases opioid consumption after hip arthroscopy: a retrospective cohort study.” Presented at: 6th World Congress on Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Medicine, September 6-9, 2023, Paris, France.

“The utility of interventions in a general population of patients might be difficult to show, but might differ by subgroups, with certain patients deriving benefit when others do not,” said Stavros G. Memtsoudis, MD, PhD, MBA, an anesthesiologist at HSS and lead author of the study. “In this study, we tried to identify which subgroups might benefit most from peripheral nerve blocks in terms of a reduction in complications after joint arthroplasty.”

These findings demonstrate that comorbidities may be a factor with a greater effect on complication risk than other factors, such as age, and that peripheral nerve blocks alone may not be sufficient to consistently influence outcomes in patients with comorbidities.

These findings may also demonstrate that there may be a specific optimal baseline patient population for whom peripheral nerve blocks have the greatest impact on improving surgical outcomes: patients who are older but do not have many comorbidities. This study could help clinicians determine which surgical patients may benefit most from peripheral nerve blocks and which candidates may need additional measures to improve their outcomes.

Many total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients are at risk for poorly controlled pain and complications. The number of these surgeries performed increases each year, underscoring the importance of finding solutions. To find out how uniformly peripheral nerve blocks can improve perioperative outcomes and pain relief in TJA patients, the researchers conducted a population-based analysis using data from TJA surgeries in the United States from January 2006 to December 2019.

Patients were divided into nine groups based on age and number of comorbidities. Age was broken down as follows: Young (Y) = younger than 65 years; Middle (M) = 65 to 75 years; and Old (O) = older than 75 years. Comorbidities were categorized as: no pre-existing comorbidity (Group 1); 1 or 2 comorbidities (Group 2); and 3 or more comorbidities (Group 3). This led to a breakdown of nine groups total: Y1, Y2, Y3, M1, M2, M3, O1, O2, and O3.

The sample included more than 2.8 million TJA cases performed in 887 hospitals. Of those, 15.5% received a peripheral nerve block. The overall rate of peripheral nerve blocks increased from 9.5% in 2006 to 18.9% in 2019. Peripheral nerve blocks were used least often in young patients with more than 3 comorbidities (13.9%) and used most often in middle-aged patients with no comorbidities (16.3%). Peripheral nerve blocks were associated with a significant reduction in the odds of respiratory complication, acute renal failure, delirium, ICU admission, high opioid consumption during hospitalization, and prolonged length of stay.

The results showed reduced odds of respiratory complications for the O1 and Y2 groups, reduced odds of acute renal failure in the Y1, O1, and M2 groups, and reduced odds of delirium in O1. The risk for ICU admission was reduced in those who received peripheral nerve blocks in all ages with no comorbidities, as well as in the Y2 and O2 groups, compared with those who did not receive a peripheral nerve block. Peripheral nerve blocks also reduced the odds of a prolonged length of stay in the Y1, M1, Y2, M2, and Y3 groups. Odds of high opioid use in patients who received a peripheral nerve block versus no peripheral nerve block were significantly reduced in all groups except for Y3 and O3.

“While peripheral nerve blocks might have the advantage of providing superior pain control versus systemic modalities as well as reducing opioid consumption, a reduction in complications might be expected in those without comorbidities,” Dr. Memtsoudis said. “However, given that peripheral nerve blocks still provide better pain control and reduce opioid use, all patients should be considered for peripheral nerve blocks.”

“Older patients without major comorbidities might represent a subgroup in which the beneficial effects of peripheral nerve blocks are most likely to be expected,” he noted. “This might be the case because major comorbidities are a bigger determinant of complications, with peripheral nerve blocks being less likely to be able to exert a substantial effect.”

Future research should include further examination of the benefits of peripheral nerve blocks. “Many questions remain unanswered, including quantification of attributable risk reduction of peripheral nerve blocks and which peripheral nerve blocks provide the biggest effect,” Dr. Memtsoudis concluded.

Reference

1. Haoyan Zhong MPA, Marko Popovic BS, Jashvant Poeran MD PhD, Crispiana Cozowicz MD, Alex Illescas MPH, Jiabin Liu MD PhD, Stavros G Memtsoudis MD PhD MBA FCCP. “Does the impact of peripheral nerve blocks vary by age and comorbidity subgroups? A nationwide population based study.” Presented at: 48th Annual Regional Anesthesiology and Acute Pain Medicine Meeting of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), April 20-22, 2023; Hollywood, FL.

Hip arthroscopy is one of the fastest growing orthopedic procedures in the United States, and despite being minimally invasive, it is a painful procedure for which analgesia can be difficult to manage. 

“Hip arthroscopy is becoming a more popular procedure performed at free standing ambulatory surgery centers (ASC). It is important to provide optimal analgesia to help combat against the over reliance on opioids for pain relief and also to facilitate discharge and patient satisfaction,” said Dr. David Kim, anesthesiologist at HSS.

A review of the literature for opioid-sparing options has not revealed a clearly superior regimen for managing pain after this surgery. 

Because ultrasound has become more common to perform nerve blocks, novel motor-sparing blocks have been introduced, such as the PENG and LFCN. When performed separately, these blocks have been shown to provide suboptimal pain relief or to cause quadriceps weakness, if a high volume of injectate spreads to the femoral nerve. Case studies have been written on combining these nerve blocks, but this is the first prospective randomized controlled trial conducted to validate this finding.

Investigators identified 1,559 patients who had elective hip arthroscopy at HSS between January 2019 to December 2020. Of that group, 268 received both a neuraxial anesthetic and a peripheral nerve block; 86 received a PENG and an LFCN block; and 26 received a PENG block, only. A control group of 112 patients received no blocks. 

The primary outcome was total opioid consumption in the PACU. Secondary outcomes included average numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores, maximum NRS pain scores, length of PACU stay, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and admissions to the hospital for pain management. 

Patients who received both a PENG and LFCN block required significantly less opioids in the PACU (15 mg [15,15] vs 22.5 mg [15 34]). They were also discharged earlier than the control group (2.4 hours [1.8,3.4] versus 4.1 [3.5,4.9]); 2.72 hours versus 4.42 hours, p <0.001). The combined PENG/LFCN group also used less intravenous rescue opioids than the control group (0 mg [0,0] versus 0 mg [0,2], p = 0.0099), and the highest NRS pain scores showed a significant difference in the PENG/LFCN group vs control group (7 [5,8] versus 7 [6,8], p = 0.0437). The group who received the PENG block alone did not show a significant difference in opioid reduction, but was discharged from the PACU earlier than the control group (3.35 hours [2.7,4.3]versus 4.9 hours [3.8,5.7], p = 0.0023).

These results demonstrate the combined PENG and LFCN block could be an opioid-sparing method of pain relief after hip arthroscopy. “PENG combined with a lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block decreased opioid consumption, and facilitated expedient discharges,” Dr. Kim noted.

Dr. Kim concluded “Follow up research should include a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing PENG, PENG with lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block, and no blocks, with primary focus on analgesia and motor strength.”

Reference

1. David H Kim MD, Genewoo Hong MD, JD, Edward Lin MD, Sang Jo Kim MD, Jonathan Beathe MD, Douglas Wetmore MD, Stavros Memtsoudis MD PhD MBA, Jiabin Liu MD PhD. “Pericapsular Nerve Group block combined with a lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block decreases opioid consumption after hip arthroscopy: a retrospective cohort study.” Presented at: 47th Annual Regional Anesthesiology and Acute Pain Medicine Meeting of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), March 31-April 2, 2021; Las Vegas, NV.

Between 2000 and 2016, the number of total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures performed in patients under 21 years of age increased from 347 to 551, while the total pediatric population in the United States remained stable, the researchers found.

Traditionally, most young patients undergoing THA suffer from developmental bone or joint ailments or juvenile inflammatory arthritis. However, the new study revealed that the upswing in THA procedures in young patients is not being driven by a rise in the number of children with inflammatory joint disease, suggesting that nonsurgical therapies to control these conditions are working, said Bella Mehta, MBBS, MS, MD, a rheumatologist at HSS and the senior author of the study.

“Our study shows that although THA procedures are increasingly being performed in young people, we aren’t seeing more of these patients seeking surgery for inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Mehta said. “We’re doing a better job at treating these individuals so they don’t develop end-stage joint damage. Twenty years ago, we didn’t have access to effective pharmacologic treatments for these conditions, and now we’re using them well and helping these patients live a better life.”

“These procedures are still pretty rare in hospitals, and some surgeons might not see any young patients,” added Alex Gibbons, a research assistant in Dr. Mehta’s group and a co-author of the study. “Although some site-specific data on THAs in adolescents exist, it wasn’t known how frequently these procedures were being performed in the United States and if that frequency was growing or not.”

For the study, Dr. Mehta and her colleagues used the Kids’ Inpatient Database, a repository of information on patients under 21 years of age from approximately 4,200 hospitals in 46 states. The researchers looked for elective and non-elective primary THA procedures.

The mean age of young patients undergoing THA was just over 17 years and remained constant throughout the duration of the study. Most patients were white (55.3%) and had private insurance (56.5%). The majority (80%) of THAs were performed in urban teaching hospitals.

Mark P. Figgie, MD, chief emeritus of the Surgical Arthritis Service at HSS and a co-author of the study, said the finding that most THA procedures in young patients are performed in urban and teaching hospitals reflects a trend that is beneficial for these patients. As other studies have demonstrated in conditions like inflammatory arthritis, when hip replacements are performed by surgeons with significant experience, patients have better outcomes. “And for younger patients, the nuances require the expertise and knowledge to avoid complications and optimize outcomes,” Dr. Figgie said.

The most common diagnoses for young patients undergoing THA were osteonecrosis, osteoarthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)/inflammatory arthritis, the researchers found. Over the course of the study, the frequency of THA for osteonecrosis rose from 24% to 38%, while that for arthritis fell from 27% to 4%—likely a reflection of recent improvements in medical management for the condition, they added.

Dr. Figgie noted that improvements in implant technology and materials have made the devices far more durable than they were 20 years ago. As a result, surgeons now feel more comfortable offering THA to young patients because their implants are likely to withstand the wear and tear of decades of activity.

Dr. Mehta said the findings could be of value both to clinicians and young patients, for whom, in many cases, the surgery is their first major operation. “I would use these results to say to a young person: ‘There are a lot of people who get these procedures; you’re not alone.’ I find that, especially for young patients, knowing they’re not the only ones to experience something really helps. And it’s a life-changing procedure for them.”

The researchers found that within two years of having had arthroscopy, about two-thirds of patients with hip arthritis had undergone a total hip replacement. They also found that prior hip arthroscopy was associated with significantly higher risks of revision hip replacement surgery, joint implant loosening and joint infection after hip replacement.

“Our study is the first to quantify the clinical outcomes and risks of complications from having hip arthroscopy before total hip replacement in patients with osteoarthritis,” says senior author Alexander S. McLawhorn, MD, MBA, a hip and knee surgeon at HSS. “Our results suggest that arthroscopy should be avoided in patients with hip arthritis, especially in those over the age of 65.”

This study is available online as part of the AAOS 2020 Virtual Education Experience and is currently published online on HIP International.

The use of hip arthroscopy has increased by more than 600% in the past 10 years. It is a minimally invasive surgical technique that involves the use of an arthroscope, a small fiber-optic tube attached to a camera that allows surgeons to view the hip joint. Surgeons use hip arthroscopy to diagnose joint problems and perform repairs, such as fixing a labral tear, correcting hip impingement or removing loose fragments of cartilage resulting from an injury.

Some surgeons have also used arthroscopy to treat patients with hip arthritis in an attempt to delay or eliminate the need for a hip replacement. “From previous patient-reported outcomes studies, we have been increasingly recognizing that these ‘clean-out procedures’ are not successful in patients with osteoarthritis. They tend to lead to joint replacements relatively soon after the arthroscopy because they do not solve the underlying problem,” says Dr. McLawhorn.

For their study, the investigators examined Medicare data from a large national insurance database called the PearlDiver Patient Records Database. They identified more than 5,200 patients with hip arthritis who had undergone a total hip replacement procedure between 2005 and 2016 and grouped them according to whether they had received hip arthroscopy before hip replacement. After matching to ensure there were no differences between groups in age, sex, smoking status, obesity or other health conditions, each group contained data for 2,600 patients. A majority, 82%, were over the age of 65.

Overall, a total of 1,790 (68%) patients who had received hip arthroscopy to treat osteoarthritis had undergone a total hip replacement procedure within two years. Patients who had a prior hip arthroscopy had 3.7 times greater risk of needing revision hip replacement surgery, 2.8 times greater risk of implant loosening and 1.9 times higher risk of joint infection after hip replacement, compared to patients who had not had hip arthroscopy prior to their hip replacement.

Within two years of total hip replacement, 3.4% of patients in the arthroscopy group required revision surgery compared to 2.1% in the non-arthroscopy group. In the same period, rates of complications were higher for the arthroscopy group compared to the non-arthroscopy group as follows: dislocation 3.2% versus 2.3%; joint infections 2.9% versus 1.6%; and joint loosening 2.3% versus 1.0%, respectively.

“These risk percentages may seem small, but they are critically important. The goal is to drive complications down to as close to zero as possible,” says Dr. McLawhorn. “No patient should undergo an unnecessary procedure, even if the downstream risk of a complication is small. A joint replacement infection, for example, is a life-altering event.”