↓ Skip to main content

Epidural analgesia for pain relief following hip or knee replacement

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
211 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Epidural analgesia for pain relief following hip or knee replacement
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Choi, Mohit Bhandari, Julia Scott, James D Douketis

Abstract

Hip and knee replacement are common operative procedures to improve mobility and quality of life. Adequate pain relief is essential in the postoperative period to enable ambulation and initiation of physiotherapy. Lumbar epidural analgesia is a common modality for pain relief following these procedures. However, there is no systematic review of the evidence comparing the efficacy of epidural analgesia with other postoperative analgesic modalities. As the use of epidural analgesia may delay the initiation of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis due to the potential risk of epidural hematoma, a synthesis of the evidence is necessary to determine whether or not alternative analgesic modalities are worse, equivalent, or better than epidural analgesia. Our objective is to answer the question: "Is lumbar epidural analgesia more efficacious than systemic analgesia or long-acting spinal analgesia for postoperative pain relief in patients after elective hip or knee replacement?" MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched from their inception to June 2001. Reference lists of review articles and included studies were also reviewed for additional citations. A study was included if it was a randomized or pseudo randomized controlled clinical trial of patients undergoing hip or knee replacement, in which postoperative lumbar epidural analgesia was compared to other methods for pain relief. Study selection was performed unblinded in duplicate. Data were collected unblinded in duplicate. Information on the patients, methods, interventions, outcomes (pain relief, postoperative function, length of stay) and adverse events were recorded. Methodological quality was assessed using a validated 5-point scale. Meta-analysis was conducted when sufficient data existed from two or more studies. Heterogeneity testing was performed using the Breslow-Day method. The fixed effects model was used unless heterogeneity was present, in which case, a random effects model was used. Continuous data were summarized as weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous data were summarized as odds ratios (OR) and numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) or numbers-needed-to-harm (NNH) with their respective 95% CI. Graphical representation of continuous data used the MetaView program. In the first four to six hours after surgery, patients receiving epidural analgesia had less pain at rest, based on visual analog scores (VAS), than patients receiving systemic analgesia (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.24 to -0.31). This effect was not statistically significant by 18 to 24 hours (SMD -0.29; 95% CI -0.73 to 0.16). These observations were based only on studies evaluating populations consisting of total knee replacements alone or mixed populations of total hip or total knee replacements. For pain relief with movement after surgery, patients receiving epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores than patients receiving systemic analgesia in all four studies examining these outcomes. The choice of epidural agents may also influence the extent to which epidural analgesia differs from systemic analgesia. The differences between epidural analgesia and systemic analgesia in the frequency of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.49) or depression of breathing (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.54) were not statistically significant. Sedation occurred less frequently with epidural analgesia (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.97) with a number-needed-to-harm of 7.7 (95% CI 3.5 to 42.0) patients for the systemic analgesia group. Retention of urine (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.51; NNH 4.5, 95% CI 2.3 to 12.2), itching (OR 4.74, 95% CI 1.76 to 12.78; NNH 6.8, 95% CI 4.4 to 15.8), and low blood pressure (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.15 to 6.72; NNH 6.7, 95% CI 3.5 to 103) were more frequent with epidural analgesia compared to systemic analgesia. There were insufficient numbers to draw conclusions on the edural analgesia compared to systemic analgesia. There were insufficient numbers to draw conclusions on the effect of epidural analgesia on serious postoperative complications, functional outcomes, or length of hospital stay. Epidural analgesia may be useful for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb joint replacements. However, the benefits may be limited to the early (four to six hours) postoperative period. An epidural infusion of local anesthetic or local anesthetic-narcotic mixture may be better than epidural narcotic alone. The magnitude of pain relief must be weighed against the frequency of adverse events. The current evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions on the frequency of rare complications from epidural analgesia, postoperative morbidity or mortality, functional outcomes, or length of hospital stay.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 150 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 26 17%
Student > Master 24 15%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Other 16 10%
Other 52 34%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 66%
Unspecified 22 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Psychology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 May 2019.
All research outputs
#6,767,835
of 13,304,303 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,701
of 10,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,246
of 354,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#172
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,304,303 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,548 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 354,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.