↓ Skip to main content

Pain Control and Functional Milestones in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Femoral Nerve Block

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
Title
Pain Control and Functional Milestones in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Femoral Nerve Block
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4740-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Yu, Alessandra Szulc, Sharon Walton, Joseph Bosco, Richard Iorio

Abstract

Although pain management after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) affects rehabilitation, length of stay, and functional outcomes, pain management for patients undergoing TKA has yet to be standardized. Femoral nerve blocks (FNBs) are commonly used as an adjunct; however, these can result in transient quadriceps weakness and have been associated with in-hospital falls. Periarticular infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine has been recently introduced as a long-acting analgesic that can be administered without affecting motor function. (1) Does periarticular liposomal bupivacaine compared with FNB result in improved pain control as measured by pain scores and narcotic consumption? (2) How do liposomal bupivacaine and FNB compare in terms of gait and stairclimbing milestones and the proportion of patients who experienced a fall in the hospital? Between September 2013 and October 2014, a retrospective analysis was conducted involving 24 surgeons who performed a total of 1373 unilateral, primary TKAs. From September 2013 to April 2014, the routine approach to TKA pain management pathway consisted of preoperative administration of oral analgesics, intraoperative anesthesia (preferred spinal or general), an ultrasound-guided FNB, intraoperative analgesic cocktail injection, patient-controlled analgesia, and oral and IV narcotics for pain as needed. A total of 583 patients were included in this study group. Starting May 2014, FNBs were discouraged and there was department-wide adoption of liposomal bupivacaine. Liposomal bupivacaine became routinely used in all patients undergoing TKA with no other changes made to the multimodal analgesia protocol at that time, and 527 patients in this study group were compared with the FNB cohort. Chart review on a total of 1110 patients was conducted by a research assistant who was not participating in patient care. During the inpatient stay, pain scores during 8-hour intervals, narcotic use, and physical therapy milestones were compared. With the numbers available, we detected no clinically important difference in pain scores throughout the hospital stay; however, patients treated with liposomal bupivacaine consumed very slightly less narcotics overall (96 ± 62 versus 84 ± 73 eq mg of morphine; [95% confidence interval, 11-13 mg]; p = 0.004) through postoperative Day 2 of inpatient hospitalization. Seventy-seven percent (406 of 527) of patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine achieved their gait milestones of clearing 100 feet of ambulation versus 60% (349 of 583) of patients receiving FNB (p < 0.001) before discharge. Likewise, 94% (497 of 527) of patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine completed stairs compared with 73% (427 of 583) of patients receiving FNB (p < 0.001). Patients who received liposomal bupivacaine were less likely to experience a fall during the hospital stay than were patients treated with FNB (3 of 527 [0.6%] versus 12 of 583 [2%]; p = 0.03). In the absence of strong data supporting FNB over liposomal bupivacaine, we have modified our TKA pain management protocols by adopting liposomal bupivacaine in lieu of FNBs, facilitating rapid rehabilitation while providing adequate pain control. Level III, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 13%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 12%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 40 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 47 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2020.
All research outputs
#4,515,057
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#959
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,129
of 421,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#15
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,653 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.