RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized double-blind controlled study. PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the effects of intravenous nefopam regarding its ability to reduce morphine consumption and postoperative pain and improve recovery in patients undergoing open spine surgery. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Multimodal analgesia, including nonopioid medications, is essential for pain management in spine surgery. Evidence regarding the use of intravenous nefopam in open spine surgery as part of enhanced recovery after surgery is lacking. METHODS: In this study, 100 patients undergoing lumbar decompressive laminectomy with fusion were randomized into two groups. The nefopam group received 20-mg intravenous nefopam diluted in 100-mL normal saline intraoperatively, followed by 80-mg nefopam diluted in 500-mL normal saline, administered as a continuous infusion postoperatively for 24 hours. The control group received an identical volume of normal saline. Postoperative pain was managed using intravenous morphine via patient-controlled analgesia. Morphine consumption in the first 24 hours was recorded as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes, including postoperative pain score, postoperative function, and length of hospital stay (LOS), were assessed. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in the total morphine consumption and postoperative pain score in the first 24 hours postoperatively between the two groups. At the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), the nefopam group demonstrated lower pain scores while at rest (p =0.03) and upon movement (p =0.02) than the normal saline group. However, the severity of postoperative pain between the two groups was similar from postoperative day 1 to day 3. LOS was significantly shorter in the nefopam group than in the control group (p <0.01). The time to first sitting and walking and PACU discharge between the two groups were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative intravenous nefopam demonstrated significant pain reduction during the early postoperative period and shortened LOS. Nefopam is considered safe and effective as a part of multimodal analgesia in open spine surgery.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes and radiographic outcomes between using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium-coated PEEK (TiPEEK) as an interbody cage in patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). METHODS: Eighty-Six patients who underwent 1-2 levels of MIS-TLIF were randomly allocated to receive a TiPEEK or PEEK cage. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded using visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and EuroQoL-5D-5L. Postoperative radiographs and computed tomography were assessed for spinal fusion and cage subsidence. RESULTS: The eligible 82 patients (41 patients, 49 operated levels in TiPEEK group and 41 patients, 50 operated levels in PEEK group) were included in the final analysis. Over total follow-up, the mean difference in visual analog scale back and leg pain scores between TiPEEK versus PEEK group was -0.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to 0.4; P = 0.85) and -0.12 (95% CI, -0.6 to 0.3; P = 0.62), respectively. The mean difference in Oswestry Disability Index scores was -0.71 (95% CI, -3.8 to 2.4; P = 0.65), and the mean difference in EQ-5D-5 L was 0.03 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.06; P = 0.11) in TiPEEK group versus PEEK group as a reference. TiPEEK showed significantly higher fusion rates than PEEK at 6-month (91.8% vs. 76%; P = 0.03), but no difference at 12-month postoperation. There was no significant difference in cage subsidence rates between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-reported outcomes showed significant improvements at 6- and 12-month postoperation following MIS-TLIF; the differences in those with TiPEEK versus PEEK cages were minimal with tight CIs. Fusion rates in both groups were ≥90%, with TiPEEK cages showing higher fusion rates at 6 months after the procedure.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized double-blind control study. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of nefopam on reducing morphine consumption and postoperative pain in patients undergoing minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) and to evaluate its effects on enhanced recovery after spine surgery. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has become a major goal for spine surgery. Multimodal pain management combining non-opioid analgesics is a key element of this. However, there is little evidence regarding the use of nefopam in spine surgery as part of an ERAS protocol. METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing MISS were randomized into two groups. Patients in the nefopam group received 20 mg of intravenous nefopam diluted in 100 mL of normal saline intraoperatively, followed by 80 mg of nefopam diluted in 500 mL of normal saline, given as a continuous infusion postoperatively for 24 hours. The control group received an identical volume of normal saline. Postoperative pain was managed by patient-controlled analgesia in the form of intravenous morphine. Morphine consumption in the first 24 hours was recorded as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes regarding ERAS were also collected. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in either total morphine consumption or postoperative pain score in the first 24 hours postoperatively between patients receiving nefopam and the control group. Morphine consumption in patients receiving nefopam was 13.54±10.64 mg compared with 15.86±16.2 mg in the control group (p=0.41). Time to postanesthetic care unit discharge, times to first sitting and walking, length of hospital stay, as well as duration of Foley catheter use and time until drain removal were also similar. There were no serious adverse effects of nefopam compared with normal saline. CONCLUSIONS: Nefopam did not significantly reduce opioid consumption or postoperative pain score. Adding nefopam as part of multimodal analgesia did not show beneficial effects for enhancing recovery after spine surgery.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The central ridge of the patella is the thickest area of patella and varies among patients. This cadaveric study identified the location and thickness of the bone at the central patella ridge for bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) harvesting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty cadaveric knees were assessed. First, the morphology, length, width, and location of the central patellar ridge were recorded. Then, we transversely cut the patella 25 mm from the lower pole and measured the thickness of the anterior cortex, cancellous bone, and cartilage from both the mid-patella and the central ridge location. Finally, the depth of the remaining cancellous bone at the mid-patella was compared to the bone at the central ridge. RESULTS: The location of the central-patellar ridge deviated medially from the mid-patella in 46 samples with an average distance of 4.36 ± 1 mm. Only 4 samples deviated laterally. The mean patella length was 41.19 ± 4.73 mm, and the width was 42.8 ± 5.25 mm. After a transverse cut, the remaining cancellous bone was significantly thicker at the central ridge compared to the bone at the mid-patella. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the central patellar ridge deviated medially, approximately 4 mm from the mid-patella. Harvesting the graft from the central ridge would have more remaining bone compared to the mid-patella.

Asunto(s)