The Open Orthopaedics Journal




ISSN: 1874-3250 ― Volume 13, 2019

One-Day vs Two-Day Epidural Analgesia for Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA): A Retrospective Cohort Study



Corbett Corbett1, William M. Reichmann1, Jeffrey N. Katz*, 1, Carolyn Beagan2, Paul Corsello1, Roya Ghazinouri2, Bachyen Dang3, Regina Mikulinsky1, Elena Losina1, John Wright4
1 Orthopedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St., 1BC-4016, Boston, MA 02115, USA
2 Rehabilitation Services, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St. Tower-2C, Boston, MA 02115, USA
3 Pharmacy Department, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02115, USA
4 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA 02115, USA

Abstract

Introduction:

Over 500,000 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) are performed annually in the US, yet postoperative pain management varies widely. In patients managed with epidural analgesia, the epidural catheter is generally removed on the second postoperative day. We compared in-hospital outcomes associated with removing the epidural catheter on postoperative day 1 (POD1-group) vs on postoperative day 2 (POD2-group) among patients undergoing TKA.

Methods:

We identified 89 patients who had TKA performed by a single surgeon from January through July 2007, and who were managed with epidural analgesia. This study took advantage of a change of policy from removing the epidural on the second postoperative day prior to March 2007 (n = 34) to removing the epidural on the first postoperative day thereafter (n = 55). Data were obtained by medical record review and analyzed with bivariate and multivariate techniques. Outcomes included knee range of motion (ROM), pain (0-10 scale), distance walked, narcotic usage, and length of stay.

Results:

The mean patient age was 68 ± 10 years. We did not identify clinically important differences in preoperative characteristics across groups. Patients in the POD1- group had a shorter length of stay (median of 3 vs 4 days in the POD2-group, p<0.001). The POD1-group also walked a greater distance on the second postoperative day (mean of 38 feet vs 9 feet in the POD2-group, p < 0.002). We did not observe a difference between the two groups with respect to change in passive ROM, pain on the second postoperative day, or narcotic usage. The POD1-group had more restricted continuous passive motion settings on the second postoperative day than the POD2-group (50° vs 65°, p = 0.031), and the POD1-group had somewhat worse passive range of motion at discharge (e.g. passive flexion 82° vs 76° in the POD2- group, p = 0.078).

Conclusion:

The balance between a shorter hospital stay and earlier walking achievement with the POD1 -strategy-- vs better ROM at the time of discharge with the POD2-strategy-- should be considered when planning TKA pain management. These results should be confirmed with longer term studies and randomized designs.

Evidence Level III:

Retrospective comparative study.

Keywords:: Knee, arthroplasty, analgesia..


Article Information


Identifiers and Pagination:

Year: 2010
Volume: 4
First Page: 31
Last Page: 38
Publisher Id: TOORTHJ-4-31
DOI: 10.2174/1874325001004010031

Article History:

Received Date: 30/9/2009
Revision Received Date: 4/12/2009
Acceptance Date: 6/12/2009
Electronic publication date: 19/1/2010
Collection year: 2010

Article Metrics:

CrossRef Citations:
0

Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 1604
Abstract HTML Views: 1190
PDF Downloads: 229
Total Views/Downloads: 3023

Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 704
Abstract HTML Views: 634
PDF Downloads: 156
Total Views/Downloads: 1494
Geographical View

© Corbett et al.; Licensee Bentham Open.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/) which permits unrestrictive use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


* Address correspondence to this author at the Orthopedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis Street, 1BC-4016, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Tel: 617 732 5510; Fax: 617 525 7900; E-mail: jnkatz@partners.org





INTRODUCTION

More than 500,000 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures are performed annually in the United States [1Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030 J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89(4): 780-5.]. Between 1990 and 2002, the number of TKAs almost tripled [2Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002 J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87(7): 1487-97.]. By 2030, the demand for TKA is estimated to increase to 3.5 million procedures annually [1Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030 J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89(4): 780-5.]. Recovering from TKA is painful for patients and postoperative pain impedes early physical therapy [3Singelyn FJ, Deyaert M, Joris D, Pendeville E, Gouverneur JM. Effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, continuous epidural analgesia, and continuous three-in-one block on postoperative pain and knee rehabilitation after unilateral total knee arthroplasty Anesth Analg 1998; 87(1): 88-92.]. Hence, postoperative pain management is a key priority. Despite the large volume of TKAs performed, postoperative pain management strategies vary substantially.

Patients undergoing TKA receive either general or regional anesthesia. Postoperative pain management options include intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), epidural infusion, and parenteral and oral opioids. One meta-analysis compared neuraxial (spinal or epidural) blockades to general anesthesia across various surgical specialties and noted an overall mortality reduction by a third among patients receiving neuraxial anesthesia [4Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials BMJ 2000; 321(7275): 1493.]. In addition, patients receiving neuraxial anesthesia have been reported to experience fewer serious postoperative complications than patients receiving general anesthesia, including cardiac morbidity (30% fewer complications), pulmonary infections (40% fewer), pulmonary embolism (50%), acute renal failure (30%), and blood loss (30%) [4Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials BMJ 2000; 321(7275): 1493., 5Moraca RJ, Sheldon DG, Thirlby RC. The role of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in surgical practice Ann Surg 2003; 238(5): 663-73.]. Neuraxial and peripherally-delivered analgesia following TKA reduce the endocrine stress response, provide superior postoperative pain relief and improve joint mobility when compared to parenteral opioids [3Singelyn FJ, Deyaert M, Joris D, Pendeville E, Gouverneur JM. Effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, continuous epidural analgesia, and continuous three-in-one block on postoperative pain and knee rehabilitation after unilateral total knee arthroplasty Anesth Analg 1998; 87(1): 88-92., 6Capdevila X, Barthelet Y, Biboulet P, Ryckwaert Y, Rubenovitch J, d'Athis F. Effects of perioperative analgesic technique on the surgical outcome and duration of rehabilitation after major knee surgery Anesthesiology 1999; 91(1): 8-15.-8Mahoney OM, Noble PC, Davidson J, Tullos HS. The effect of continuous epidural analgesia on postoperative pain, rehabilitation, and duration of hospitalization in total knee arthroplasty Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 260: 30-7.]. A key advantage of epidural anesthesia is that the catheter can be used to administer both intraoperative anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Epidural anesthesia and analgesia have been shown to promote early rehabilitation, reduce the length of hospital stay, and decrease the risk of deep vein thrombosis after total joint arthroplasty [9Williams-Russo P, Sharrock NE, Haas SB, et al. Randomized trial of epidural vs general anesthesia: outcomes after primary total knee replacement Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 331: 199-208.-11Sharrock NE, Haas SB, Hargett MJ, Urquhart B, Insall JN, Scuderi G. Effects of epidural anesthesia on the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis after total knee arthroplasty J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991; 73(4): 502-6.]. As a result, epidural anesthesia and analgesia are frequently used pain management strategies for TKA.

The optimal duration of postoperative epidural analgesia has not been clarified. Traditionally, the epidural catheter is removed after 48 hours; longer duration increases the risk of spinal hematoma associated with perioperative anticoagulation [12Horlocker TT, Wedel DJ, Benzon H, et al. Regional anesthesia in the anticoagulated patient: Defining the risks (the second ASRA consensus conference on neuraxial anesthesia and anticoagulation) Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003; 28(3): 172-97.-15Parvizi J, Viscusi ER, Frank HG, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RR. Can epidural anesthesia and warfarin be coadministered? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 456: 133-7.]. However, stopping the epidural infusion on postoperative day two may prolong inactivity resulting in delayed rehabilitation. We hypothesized that by removing the epidural catheter on postoperative day one, rehabilitation milestones, including ambulation, would be attained earlier and length of hospital stay would shorten while pain control would be comparable to the two-day analgesia strategy. To address these hypotheses, we took advantage of a change in clinical policy in one surgeon’s practice to compare the inpatient clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes of two groups of patients who underwent TKA. The first group had epidural catheters removed on postoperative day one (POD1-group) and the second group had epidural catheters removed on postoperative day two (POD2-group).

METHODS

Design

We conducted a retrospective cohort study that took advantage of a change in practice policy in March 2007. Prior to this point, epidurals were removed on the second postoperative day. After March 2007, the policy was changed to remove the epidural on the first postoperative day. Prompted by the desire to control length of stay, and attributing patients’ poor postoperative day two experiences to the prolonged epidural, the change of practice was initiated to shorten epidural use to a single day.

Study Sample

The study sample was composed of patients who underwent TKA performed by a single surgeon at a large orthopedic referral center in a metropolitan area. Ninety-six consecutive patients were identified from the surgeon’s schedule and their electronic medical records were reviewed. Seven patients were excluded because of inadequate documentation of outcomes in the patients’ medical record (3 patients), or because the patients’ epidural analgesia was stopped prematurely (4 patients). Thirty-four patients had the epidural removed on postoperative day two (POD2-group); these patients underwent TKA between January and February of 2007. By the summer months, the change to the epidural practice had been fully operationalized in the clinic. The POD2-group was compared to 55 patients with epidurals removed on postoperative day one (POD1-group); these procedures were performed between June and July of 2007. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to conducting this study.

Intervention

TKA was performed by a single surgeon using the PFC Sigma Cruciate Retaining cemented prosthesis, using a standard medial parapatellar tendon arthrotomy. The surgery was performed with a tourniquet and drains were not used. The anesthesiology service placed the epidural catheter just prior to surgery. The epidural anesthetic generally consisted of lidocaine and bupivicaine and often hydromorphone, with doses titrated to patient weight and tolerance. While the epidural anesthetic was not standardized, the same anesthesia service cared for both study groups in an identical manner with the exception of the shortened epidural duration. Postoperative pain control also did not change between groups. However, oxycontin was initiated before the epidural was removed in the POD1-group, which wasn’t necessarily true in the POD2-group. Patients received either 325 mg aspirin daily or coumadin with INR 1.8-2.3 for three weeks prostoperatively for DVT prophylaxis, with the treatment decision based on the patient’s BMI, history of thromboembolism, and other risk factors for DVT or PE. The physical therapy protocol involved initial evaluation on the first day after surgery. Patients were seen once daily by the physical therapist or physical therapist assistant for thirty to sixty-minute sessions. The therapist adhered to a protocol that emphasized regaining strength, knee flexion and extension range of motion, improving proprioception, increasing independence with transfers, and use of supportive walking devices for level ambulation and stairs. All patients were managed with a continuous passive motion machine for approximately six hours per day in two hour sessions starting the morning after surgery.

Data Sources

We obtained preoperative and perioperative (within inpatient stay) data from surgical, nursing, and physical therapy notes in the medical records. Supplementary narcotic medication usage was collected from pharmacy records over the course of the patients’ hospital stay.

Baseline Characteristics

Baseline characteristics included age, body mass index (BMI), gender, race (Caucasian or non-Caucasian), side of the operation, preoperative ambulation (independent or with walking aid), Charlson comorbidity index score (a validated, weighted sum of the number and severity of medical problems, scored in this analysis as 0-1 or ≥ 2) [16Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation J Chronic Dis 1987; 40(5): 373-83.], preoperative living status (alone or not alone), preoperative primary diagnosis (osteoarthritis or other), smoking status, and insurance status.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS), measured as the number of days from surgery to discharge. We also considered several patient-based secondary outcomes including pain, functional measures, discharge destination and supplemental narcotic usage.

Pain was assessed by physical therapists during daily activity and was measured on a 0-10 scale, 10 being the worst. For most patients, pain was measured once per day over the course of the hospital stay. In cases where pain was measured more than once per day, we collected the highest (worst) level of pain recorded for that particular day. For this analysis, we compared the two groups’ pain levels on postoperative day two.

Functional outcomes included distance walked on postoperative day two, measured in feet. We also analyzed degree of assistance needed for walking at time of discharge using the response format of the validated Functional Independence Measure (FIM) [17Ravaud JF, Delcey M, Yelnik A. Construct validity of the functional independence measure (FIM): Questioning the unidimensionality of the scale and the "value" of FIM scores Scand J Rehabil Med 1999; 31(1): 31-41., 18Granger CV, Hamilton BB. UDS report. The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1990 Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 71(2): 108-3.]. This outcome was dichotomized as none or minimum vs moderate, maximum, or can’t perform. Passive range of motion (ROM) was measured using a goniometer. Passive knee flexion and extension data were collected on postoperative day one and at discharge. We also calculated the change in ROM from postoperative day one to discharge for each patient. Continuous passive motion (CPM) settings were compared at postoperative day two.

Supplementary narcotic medication usage was measured by converting the various opiate medication dosages into milligrams of oxycodone-equivalents. We used oxycodone-equivalents because this drug was the most frequently used analgesic in this cohort. A table of narcotic conversion data (see Appendix) was developed and verified from a number of sources, including the American Pain Society and Thomson’s Healthcare DrugDex Consult database [19Loughlin J. The genetic epidemiology of human primary osteoarthritis: Current status Expert Rev Mol Med 2005; 7(9): 1-12.-22Gutstein HB, Akil H. Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics In: Opioid analgesics, Brunton LL, Lazo JS, Parker KL, Eds. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division 2002; pp. 547-90.]. We compared the average cumulative usage of oxycodone-equivalents on the day the epidural catheter was removed. We also compared use of oxycodone-equivalents between the groups on the day after the epidural was pulled (postoperative day two in the POD1-group and postoperative day three in the POD2-group). Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) narcotics were not included in the calculation of cumulative narcotics dose, because the retrospective nature of the study precluded us from determining how much of the medication the patient had received. However, we did create an indicator variable distinguishing whether the patient received PCA and we controlled for this variable in our analysis. Narcotics dispensed through the epidural catheter were also excluded from this supplementary analysis because it was not possible to compare the quantity of analgesia between epidural administration and oral/parenteral narcotics.

Analysis

Length of stay was compared between the two groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Pain scores, walking distance, and CPM settings at postoperative day two, as well as passive ROM at postoperative day one, passive ROM at discharge, and change in passive ROM between postoperative day one and discharge were compared between the groups using the independent samples t-test. Discharge destination and assistance level needed for walking at discharge were compared using the Chi-square test.

Since supplementary narcotic medication was ascertained at multiple time points, repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the impact of epidural strategy controlling for time. For this analysis, time was the number of days since the catheter was removed. For example, Day 1 represents the first 24 hours since the epidural catheter was removed. Day 2 represents the second 24 hours since the epidural catheter was removed. All of the above analyses were performed using SAS software, version 9.1.

Due to the modest sample size and the fact that LOS was not normally distributed, we analyzed LOS using techniques that do not require that the variable have a normal distribution. Specifically, we chose a robust regression analysis with fixed bootstrap re-sampling to determine the effect of epidural strategy on length of stay. This approach provides accurate estimates and valid 95% confidence intervals even if the assumptions of ordinary linear regression are not met, while maintaining the same interpretability as linear regression. The bootstrap procedure is essentially a series of regressions performed on subsets of the same population. In this case, it was performed using 10,000 replicates. The parameter estimates and standard errors from these multiple bootstrap regression results were used to calculate adjusted means and 95% confidence intervals for the parameter of interest. We built a model that included an interaction term of epidural strategy and discharge destination because we hypothesized that the epidural strategy would have different effects on LOS in subjects discharged home than in subjects discharged to another inpatient facility. We also controlled for insurance status in this analysis, as this variable may affect discharge destination. This analysis was performed using R statistical software, version 2.6.2. [23Fox J. Bootstrapping Regression Models. An R and S-PLUS Companion to Applied Regression In: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2002; pp. 1-14.]

Sample Size

The primary outcome variable was LOS. Prior data from our center suggested the standard deviation in LOS was approximately 0.25 days. Thus, we sought to detect a difference in LOS between the 1-day and 2-day groups of at least 0.25 days. With Type I error of 0.05 and power of 90% this required 22 patients in each group. We included at least 30 in each group to account for errors in these assumptions and to increase power for secondary outcomes.

Source of Funding

The funding sources (Departmental Funds, NIH) played no role in the design or conduct of the study.

RESULTS

Cohort Characteristics

The mean age of the entire cohort was 68 ± 10 years and the mean BMI was 31 ± 7 kg/m2. Seventy-eight percent were female, 84% were Caucasian, 29% percent had a Charlson comorbidity score ≥ 2, and 96% underwent TKA for osteoarthritis. Other baseline characteristics of the sample were similar between the two groups (Table 1) except for smoking status. In the POD1-group, 10% reported being a current smoker and 27% reported being a past smoker, while no study subjects reported being a current smoker and 55% reported being a past smoker in the POD2-group (p = 0.02).

Table 1

Comparison of Baseline Characteristics Between Epidural Strategies




Bivariate Analyses

Length of Stay

Results of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test found that the POD2-group had a statistically significantly greater length of stay than the POD1-group. The median length of stay for the POD2-group was 4 days (mean 4.0, range: 3-7 days), while the median length of stay for the POD1-group was 3 days (mean 3.2, range: 2-5 days; p < 0.001).

Patient Outcomes

Results of the independent samples t-test found no differences between the groups with respect to pain scores at postoperative day two (p = 0.445). The POD2-group experienced better passive flexion at postoperative day one than the POD1-group (mean = 73° and 66° respectively; p = 0.045). The POD2-group also experienced better passive flexion at discharge than the POD1-group (mean = 82° and 76° respectively) although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.078). At the first postoperative day, the POD2-group experienced better passive extension than the POD1-group (mean = 6° and 10° lacking full extension respectively; p = 0.013). The POD2-group also experienced better passive extension at discharge than the POD1-group (mean = 4° and 7° lacking full extension respectively; p=0.047). There was no difference between the two groups for change in passive flexion (p = 0.665) or passive extension (p = 0.356) from the first postoperative day to discharge. The POD2-group had a higher mean CPM setting at postoperative day two than the POD1-group (mean = 65° and 50° respectively; p=0.031). The POD1-group walked a greater distance at the second postoperative day than the POD2-group (mean = 38 and 9 feet respectively, p < 0.002). Multivariable linear regression models of these outcomes (pain, range of motion, walking distance) did not alter the effect of epidural strategy on these outcomes when controlling for age, gender, and race. Thus, we have chosen to present just the bivariate analyses.

Results of the chi-square test found no difference between the two epidural strategies with respect to assistance level needed for walking at discharge and discharge destination (p = 0.703 and 0.738 respectively; Table 2). Multivariable logistic regression models did not alter the effect of epidural strategy on these outcomes when controlling for age, gender, and race. Thus, for these analyses as well, we have chosen to present only the bivariate analyses.

Table 2

Comparison of Outcomes between Epidural Strategies




Multivariable Analyses

Length of Stay

Results of the robust regression with fixed bootstrap resampling found that the effect of epidural removal strategy on LOS depended on the subject’s discharge destination. LOS was not affected by epidural strategy when the subject was discharged to a rehabilitation facility. The mean LOS for these patients was 3.5 (95% CI: 3.3, 3.8) in the POD2-group and 3.2 (95% CI: 3.0, 3.4) in the POD1-group. However, LOS was affected by epidural strategy when the subject was discharged to their home. The mean LOS for these patients was 4.5 (95% CI: 4.2, 4.9) for the POD2-group and 3.3 (95% CI: 3.1, 3.6) for the POD1-group (Fig. 2). We did not find an association between the insurance status of the patient and LOS in this analysis.

Fig. (2)

Title: Mean length of stay stratified by epidural removal strategy and discharge destination. Mean length of stay, stratified by epidural-removal strategy using the robust regression with the bootstrap (10,000 replicates), are represented by the bars. The gray bars represent the POD1-group, while the white bars represent the POD2-group. The error bars represent the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval.



Supplementary Narcotic Medication Usage

We compared the amount of supplementary narcotic usage between the two groups on the day the epidural catheter was removed as well as the amount used on the following day. Thirty-five percent of patients in the POD1-group and 59% of patients in the POD2-group were on PCAs on the first day the epidural catheters were removed (Fig. 1). Results of the repeated measures analysis did not find a significant interaction between time since the epidural catheter was removed and the epidural strategy on narcotic usage (p = 0.249), controlling for whether or not the patient used PCA. On the day the catheter was removed the POD1-group used 108 mg of oxycodone-equivalents, while the POD2-group used 81 mg of oxycodone-equivalents. On the following day, the POD1-group had used 165 mg, while the POD2-group had used 121 mg. These differences between the groups were not statistically significant since the 95% confidence intervals overlap (Fig. 1).

Fig. (1)

Comparison of supplementary narcotic medication usage following epidural catheter removal by group. Mean cumulative narcotic usage in milligrams of oxycodone-equivalents are represented by the bars with the error bars representing the lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval. The gray bars represent the POD1-group, while the white bars represent the POD2-group. Day 1 represents the first 24 hours since the epidural catheter was removed. Day 2 represents the second 24 hours since the epidural catheter was removed.



DISCUSSION

Total knee arthroplasty is a frequently performed procedure that predictably relieves pain and restores functional status, but involves a painful postoperative course. Many studies have compared the outcomes of epidural pain management to either general anesthesia with parenteral analgesia or to peripheral block methods [3Singelyn FJ, Deyaert M, Joris D, Pendeville E, Gouverneur JM. Effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, continuous epidural analgesia, and continuous three-in-one block on postoperative pain and knee rehabilitation after unilateral total knee arthroplasty Anesth Analg 1998; 87(1): 88-92., 4Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials BMJ 2000; 321(7275): 1493., 6Capdevila X, Barthelet Y, Biboulet P, Ryckwaert Y, Rubenovitch J, d'Athis F. Effects of perioperative analgesic technique on the surgical outcome and duration of rehabilitation after major knee surgery Anesthesiology 1999; 91(1): 8-15.-10Chu CP, Yap JC, Chen PP, Hung HH. Postoperative outcome in Chinese patients having primary total knee arthroplasty under general anaesthesia/intravenous patient-controlled analgesia compared to spinal-epidural anaesthesia/analgesia Hong Kong Med J 2006; 12(6): 442-7., 24Block BM, Liu SS, Rowlingson AJ, Cowan AR, Cowan JA Jr, Wu CL. Efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia: A meta-analysis JAMA 2003; 290(18): 2455-63.]. However, we are unaware of any studies comparing the effect of duration of epidural analgesia on in-hospital rehabilitation and utilization outcomes following TKA. This study took advantage of a change in practice policy from removal of the epidural catheter on the second postoperative day to removal on the first postoperative day. We performed a retrospective cohort study to compare the postoperative outcomes between patients with epidural catheters removed either on POD1 or on POD2.

Baseline characteristics between groups were quite similar, supporting the validity of comparing these two groups. The POD1-group had a median LOS of three days, while the POD2-group had a median LOS of four days. We found that this effect of epidural strategy on LOS was modified by discharge destination. Subjects that were discharged to home had a shorter LOS in the POD1-group than those in the POD2-group. Length of stay was similar between the two epidural strategies for participants discharged to a rehabilitation facility. While there was no significant difference in the percent of patients discharged to a rehabilitation facility between the epidural strategy groups, both POD1- and POD2-groups had higher rates of discharge to rehabilitation facilities than the national average.

This study demonstrated that patients with an epidural removed on the first postoperative day were mobilized sooner and discharged after a shorter hospital stay than patients whose epidural catheters were removed on the second postoperative day. The POD1-group also walked a greater distance than the POD2-group on the second postoperative day. We did not observe a difference in reported pain or need for assistance for walking at discharge. Patients in the POD1-group had worse range of motion on the first postoperative day. Typically, the epidural catheter was removed in the early morning and the physical therapist measured ROM in the afternoon. By the time ROM was measured the POD1-group had lost several degrees of flexion and extension. This difference was maintained throughout the hospitalization, such that the POD1-group had somewhat worse ROM at discharge. Whether this difference is maintained or ultimately dissipates is an important question for future work.

We note several limitations. Neither physical therapists who assessed mobility, functional status and pain nor study participants were blinded to the epidural removal strategy. They were not, however, aware that this comparison was going to be conducted. Furthermore, the study did not utilize a random allocation of study participants to epidural removal strategies under consideration. The quasi experimental design did result in well-balanced groups, however. While we showed that Medicare insurance status did not affect LOS, a larger study could have examined the association between payer and LOS in greater detail. Data were collected as part of routine clinical care and not under a research protocol. One consequence is that outcome data were not available for three patients, introducing possible bias. It is conceivable that different times of year in which the two groups were admitted (POD2-group in winter, POD1-group in summer) were associated with distinctive outcomes. Data on problems in other joints were not available but would also have been helpful to include in the multivariate analysis. Incomplete data in the medical records, particularly the rehabilitation and pharmacy notes, and lack of preoperative range of motion also limited the information available for this study.

CONCLUSION

Longer term follow-up, randomized design and a cost-effectiveness analysis are needed to more rigorously evaluate the outcomes of these two analgesic strategies, and the relationship between program costs and quality of life benefits. The balance between a shorter hospital stay and earlier walking achievement with the POD1-strategy -- vs better ROM with the POD2-strategy-- should be considered when planning TKA pain management.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Supported by the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; National Institutes of Health (NIAMS) K24 AR 02123, P60 AR 47782.

APPENDIX

Analgesic Equivalents and Conversion Factor to Oxycodone-Equivalents




REFERENCES

[1] Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030 J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89(4): 780-5.
[2] Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002 J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87(7): 1487-97.
[3] Singelyn FJ, Deyaert M, Joris D, Pendeville E, Gouverneur JM. Effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, continuous epidural analgesia, and continuous three-in-one block on postoperative pain and knee rehabilitation after unilateral total knee arthroplasty Anesth Analg 1998; 87(1): 88-92.
[4] Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials BMJ 2000; 321(7275): 1493.
[5] Moraca RJ, Sheldon DG, Thirlby RC. The role of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in surgical practice Ann Surg 2003; 238(5): 663-73.
[6] Capdevila X, Barthelet Y, Biboulet P, Ryckwaert Y, Rubenovitch J, d'Athis F. Effects of perioperative analgesic technique on the surgical outcome and duration of rehabilitation after major knee surgery Anesthesiology 1999; 91(1): 8-15.
[7] Adams HA, Saatweber P, Schmitz CS, Hecker H. Postoperative pain management in orthopaedic patients: no differences in pain score, but improved stress control by epidural anaesthesia Eur J Anaesthesiol 2002; 19(9): 658-.
[8] Mahoney OM, Noble PC, Davidson J, Tullos HS. The effect of continuous epidural analgesia on postoperative pain, rehabilitation, and duration of hospitalization in total knee arthroplasty Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 260: 30-7.
[9] Williams-Russo P, Sharrock NE, Haas SB, et al. Randomized trial of epidural vs general anesthesia: outcomes after primary total knee replacement Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 331: 199-208.
[10] Chu CP, Yap JC, Chen PP, Hung HH. Postoperative outcome in Chinese patients having primary total knee arthroplasty under general anaesthesia/intravenous patient-controlled analgesia compared to spinal-epidural anaesthesia/analgesia Hong Kong Med J 2006; 12(6): 442-7.
[11] Sharrock NE, Haas SB, Hargett MJ, Urquhart B, Insall JN, Scuderi G. Effects of epidural anesthesia on the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis after total knee arthroplasty J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991; 73(4): 502-6.
[12] Horlocker TT, Wedel DJ, Benzon H, et al. Regional anesthesia in the anticoagulated patient: Defining the risks (the second ASRA consensus conference on neuraxial anesthesia and anticoagulation) Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003; 28(3): 172-97.
[13] Markel DC, Doerr T, Lincoln D, Bass NF. Observational study on intrathecal and peridural changes after routine spinal and epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty J Arthroplasty 2007; 22(6): 844-.
[14] Hantler C, Despotis GJ, Sinha R, Chelly JE. Guidelines and alternatives for neuraxial anesthesia and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in major orthopedic surgery J Arthroplasty 2004; 19(8): 1004-6.
[15] Parvizi J, Viscusi ER, Frank HG, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RR. Can epidural anesthesia and warfarin be coadministered? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 456: 133-7.
[16] Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation J Chronic Dis 1987; 40(5): 373-83.
[17] Ravaud JF, Delcey M, Yelnik A. Construct validity of the functional independence measure (FIM): Questioning the unidimensionality of the scale and the "value" of FIM scores Scand J Rehabil Med 1999; 31(1): 31-41.
[18] Granger CV, Hamilton BB. UDS report. The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1990 Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 71(2): 108-3.
[19] Loughlin J. The genetic epidemiology of human primary osteoarthritis: Current status Expert Rev Mol Med 2005; 7(9): 1-12.
[20] Amercian Pain Society: Principles of Analgesic Use in the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain In: Glenview, IL: American Pain Society 2003.
[21] Reisner L, Koo PJS. Pain and its management In: Koda-Kimble MA, Young LY, Kradjan WA, Guglielmo BJ, Alldredge BK, Corelli RL, Eds. Applied Therapeutics: The Clinical Use of Drugs Philade. 8th Ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2005; pp. 9.1-9.40.
[22] Gutstein HB, Akil H. Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics In: Opioid analgesics, Brunton LL, Lazo JS, Parker KL, Eds. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division 2002; pp. 547-90.
[23] Fox J. Bootstrapping Regression Models. An R and S-PLUS Companion to Applied Regression In: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2002; pp. 1-14.
[24] Block BM, Liu SS, Rowlingson AJ, Cowan AR, Cowan JA Jr, Wu CL. Efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia: A meta-analysis JAMA 2003; 290(18): 2455-63.

Endorsements



"Open access will revolutionize 21st century knowledge work and accelerate the diffusion of ideas and evidence that support just in time learning and the evolution of thinking in a number of disciplines."


Daniel Pesut
(Indiana University School of Nursing, USA)

"It is important that students and researchers from all over the world can have easy access to relevant, high-standard and timely scientific information. This is exactly what Open Access Journals provide and this is the reason why I support this endeavor."


Jacques Descotes
(Centre Antipoison-Centre de Pharmacovigilance, France)

"Publishing research articles is the key for future scientific progress. Open Access publishing is therefore of utmost importance for wider dissemination of information, and will help serving the best interest of the scientific community."


Patrice Talaga
(UCB S.A., Belgium)

"Open access journals are a novel concept in the medical literature. They offer accessible information to a wide variety of individuals, including physicians, medical students, clinical investigators, and the general public. They are an outstanding source of medical and scientific information."


Jeffrey M. Weinberg
(St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, USA)

"Open access journals are extremely useful for graduate students, investigators and all other interested persons to read important scientific articles and subscribe scientific journals. Indeed, the research articles span a wide range of area and of high quality. This is specially a must for researchers belonging to institutions with limited library facility and funding to subscribe scientific journals."


Debomoy K. Lahiri
(Indiana University School of Medicine, USA)

"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."


Robert Looney
(Naval Postgraduate School, USA)

"Open access journals have transformed the way scientific data is published and disseminated: particularly, whilst ensuring a high quality standard and transparency in the editorial process, they have increased the access to the scientific literature by those researchers that have limited library support or that are working on small budgets."


Richard Reithinger
(Westat, USA)

"Not only do open access journals greatly improve the access to high quality information for scientists in the developing world, it also provides extra exposure for our papers."


J. Ferwerda
(University of Oxford, UK)

"Open Access 'Chemistry' Journals allow the dissemination of knowledge at your finger tips without paying for the scientific content."


Sean L. Kitson
(Almac Sciences, Northern Ireland)

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area."


Hubert Wolterbeek
(Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

"The widest possible diffusion of information is critical for the advancement of science. In this perspective, open access journals are instrumental in fostering researches and achievements."


Alessandro Laviano
(Sapienza - University of Rome, Italy)

"Open access journals are very useful for all scientists as they can have quick information in the different fields of science."


Philippe Hernigou
(Paris University, France)

"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."


Fidel Toldrá
(Instituto de Agroquimica y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Spain)

"Open access journals have become a fundamental tool for students, researchers, patients and the general public. Many people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals benefit of them on a daily basis. The articles are among the best and cover most scientific areas."


M. Bendandi
(University Clinic of Navarre, Spain)

"These journals provide researchers with a platform for rapid, open access scientific communication. The articles are of high quality and broad scope."


Peter Chiba
(University of Vienna, Austria)

"Open access journals are probably one of the most important contributions to promote and diffuse science worldwide."


Jaime Sampaio
(University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal)

"Open access journals make up a new and rather revolutionary way to scientific publication. This option opens several quite interesting possibilities to disseminate openly and freely new knowledge and even to facilitate interpersonal communication among scientists."


Eduardo A. Castro
(INIFTA, Argentina)

"Open access journals are freely available online throughout the world, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use. The articles published in the open access journals are high quality and cover a wide range of fields."


Kenji Hashimoto
(Chiba University, Japan)

"Open Access journals offer an innovative and efficient way of publication for academics and professionals in a wide range of disciplines. The papers published are of high quality after rigorous peer review and they are Indexed in: major international databases. I read Open Access journals to keep abreast of the recent development in my field of study."


Daniel Shek
(Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category."


Jih Ru Hwu
(National Central University, Taiwan)


Browse Contents




Webmaster Contact: info@benthamopen.net
Copyright © 2019 Bentham Open