Abstract
Background:
Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is widely used in joint arthroplasty, but there is little reported on the use of LB in foot and ankle surgery. Continuous popliteal sciatic nerve block (CPSNB) is more commonly used for major foot and ankle reconstructions. The purpose of this study was to compare use of intraoperative LB injection to CPSNB as a regional anesthetic for total ankle arthroplasty (TAA), with attention to postoperative pain scores, narcotic use, and complications.
Methods:
Retrospective review of TAA patients of 2 fellowship-trained orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons was performed. Patients received either preoperative single-shot popliteal sciatic nerve block with 0.2% ropivacaine followed by intraoperative injection of LB or preoperative CPSNB alone. Outcomes examined were visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at 8 hours, 24 hours, 1 week, and 3 weeks following surgery; need for opioid pain medication refill; physician office notification for pain issues or other adverse events; and complications within the first 90 days following surgery. Standard statistical analysis was performed, and P < .05 was considered significant. Seventy-five patients were identified who underwent TAA and met inclusion criteria. Forty-one received LB, and 34 received CPSNB.
Results:
No statistical difference was seen between groups with regard to complications, emergency department visits, readmissions, reoperations, VAS pain score at any time point, physician office contacts, and narcotic refills. Sixteen of 41 (39%) LB patients had narcotic refills, versus 12 of 34 (35%) CPSNB patients (P = .81). Two of 41 (5%) LB patients had a complication postoperatively, versus 4 of 34 (12%) CPSNB patients. There were no complications specific to the anesthetic used in either group.
Conclusion:
This is the first study evaluating the use of LB for total ankle arthroplasty. Liposomal bupivacaine was safe and effective as an option for regional anesthetic and postoperative pain control, with comparable results to CPSNB.
Level of Evidence:
Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
