Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(08): 827-836
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1743235
Original Article

Liposomal Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine Adductor Canal Blocks for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Provide Similar Postoperative Analgesia

Emily L. DeMaio 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Jennifer L. Hunnicutt
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Rebecca M. Haley
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Ehab Nazzal
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
Yunyun Chen
3   Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Ajay Premkumar
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Joseph D. Lamplot
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Heather A. Samady
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Michael B. Gottschalk
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
,
John W. Xerogeanes
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative pain following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) in patients receiving an adductor canal block (ACB) with ropivacaine (R-ACB) or liposomal bupivacaine (LB-ACB). The secondary purpose was to compare opioid consumption. A prospective cohort study of patients undergoing ACLR at an academic medical center was conducted from November 1, 2018 to November 21, 2019. The first cohort received R-ACB and 30 tablets of 5/325 mg oxycodone/acetaminophen. After June 13, 2019, the second cohort received LB-ACB and 20 tablets of 5/325 mg oxycodone/acetaminophen with the reduction in opioids prescribed resulting from a hospital quality improvement initiative to decrease narcotic consumption. From postoperative days 0 through 6, pain was assessed thrice daily using a numeric rating scale. Total postoperative opioid consumption was reported via tablet count and converted to oral morphine equivalents (OMEs). During this period, 165 subjects underwent ACLR, and 126 met the eligibility criteria (44.4% female, 55.6% male; mean ± standard deviation: 28.7 ± 13.7 years). Sixty-six (52.4%) received LB-ACB, and 60 (47.6%) received R-ACB (p = 0.53). The most common graft utilized was quadriceps autograft (63.6% LB-ACB; 58.3% R-ACB, p = 0.76). Mean postoperative pain scores were similar between groups during the entire postoperative period (p ≥ 0.08 for POD 0–6). While postoperative opioid consumption was lower among patients receiving LB-ACB (median OME [interquartile range]: 28.6 [7.5–63.8] vs. 45.0 [15.0–75.0], p = 0.023), this only amounted to an average of 2.2 tablets. Patients receiving LB-ACB in the setting of ACLR reported similar postoperative pain compared with those receiving R-ACB. Despite the second aim of our study, we cannot make conclusions about the effect of each block on opioid consumption given that each cohort received different numbers of opioid tablets due to institutional pressure to reduce opioid prescribing. As few patients completed their opioid prescriptions or requested refills, further reduction in prescription size is warranted. Future studies are necessary to further elucidate the effect of LB-ACB versus R-ACB on postoperative pain and opioid consumption after ACLR.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - adductor canal block - liposomal bupivacaine - pain - opioids

Authors' Contributions

E.L.D.


• Substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work along with acquisition and interpretation of data.


• Drafting the work.


• Final approval of the version to be published.


• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


J.L.H.


• Substantial contributions to the conception of the work.


• Revising the work critically for important intellectual content.


• Final approval of the version to be published.


• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


R.M.H.


• Acquisition of the data.


• Drafting of the work.


• Final approval of the version to be published.


• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


E.N.


• Substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work


• Revising the work critically for important intellectual content


• Final approval of the version to be published


• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


Y.C.


• Analysis and interpretation of the data.


• Revising the work critically for important intellectual content.


• Final approval of the version to be published.


• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


A.P.


• Substantial contributions to the conception of the work.


• Revising the work critically for important intellectual content.


• Final approval of the version to be published.


• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


J.D.L.


• Interpretation of the data for the work.


• Drafting the work.


• Final approval of the version to be published.


• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


H.A.S.


• Substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work.


• Revising the work critically for important intellectual content.


• Final approval of the version to be published.


• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


M.B.G.


• Substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work and interpretation of the data.


• Revising the work critically for important intellectual content.


• Final approval of the version to be published.


• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


J.W.X.


• Substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work and interpretation of the data.


• Revising the work critically for important intellectual content.


• Final approval of the version to be published.


• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.




Publication History

Received: 12 April 2021

Accepted: 09 January 2022

Article published online:
10 March 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Morris BJ, Mir HR. The opioid epidemic: impact on orthopaedic surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23 (05) 267-271
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Koehler RM, Okoroafor UC, Cannada LK. A systematic review of opioid use after extremity trauma in orthopedic surgery. Injury 2018; 49 (06) 1003-1007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P. et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open 2013; 3 (04) e002525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Acute Pain Management. Practice guidelines for acute pain management in the perioperative setting: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Acute Pain Management. Anesthesiology 2012; 116 (02) 248-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mall NA, Chalmers PN, Moric M. et al. Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (10) 2363-2370
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Okoroha KR, Keller RA, Jung EK. et al. Pain assessment after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: bone-patellar tendon-bone versus hamstring tendon autograft. Orthop J Sports Med 2016;4(12):2325967116674924
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ruscheweyh R, Nees F, Marziniak M, Evers S, Flor H, Knecht S. Pain catastrophizing and pain-related emotions: influence of age and type of pain. Clin J Pain 2011; 27 (07) 578-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Anthony CA, Westermann RW, Bedard N. et al. Opioid demand before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (13) 3098-3103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cochran BN, Flentje A, Heck NC. et al. Factors predicting development of opioid use disorders among individuals who receive an initial opioid prescription: mathematical modeling using a database of commercially-insured individuals. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014; 138: 202-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dagenais-Beaulé V, Tourigny JF, Papillon-Ferland L. Opioid use and pain control in the elderly after elective or urgent orthopaedic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Drug Investig 2019; 39 (03) 301-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Edwards MD, Bethea JP, Hunnicutt JL, Slone HS, Woolf SK. Effect of adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block on quadriceps strength, function, and postoperative pain after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of level 1 studies. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48 (09) 2305-2313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Runner RP, Boden SA, Godfrey WS. et al. Quadriceps strength deficits after a femoral nerve block versus adductor canal block for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, single-blinded, randomized trial. Orthop J Sports Med 2018;6(09):2325967118797990
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Abdallah FW, Whelan DB, Chan VW. et al. Adductor canal block provides noninferior analgesia and superior quadriceps strength compared with femoral nerve block in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Anesthesiology 2016; 124 (05) 1053-1064
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chahar P, Cummings III KC. Liposomal bupivacaine: a review of a new bupivacaine formulation. J Pain Res 2012; 5: 257-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lynch JR, Okoroha KR, Lizzio V, Yu CC, Jildeh TR, Moutzouros V. Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for pain control after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (02) 355-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Xerogeanes JW, Premkumar A, Godfrey W. et al. Adductor canal vs. femoral nerve block in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial. Orthop J Sports Med 2017;5(7, Suppl 6):2325967117S2325900277
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Brown SL, Morrison AE. Local anesthetic infusion pump systems adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration. Anesthesiology 2004; 100 (05) 1305-1307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Evaluation of a local anesthetic agent. Bupivacaine hydrochloride (Marcaine). JAMA 1973; 224 (07) 1035-1036
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Liu-Deryke X, Anderson RL. Ensuring safe and economical use of elastomeric infusion devices. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2011; 68 (24) 2331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lonner JH, Scuderi GR, Lieberman JR. Potential utility of liposome bupivacaine in orthopedic surgery. Am J Orthop 2015; 44 (03) 111-117
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Noyes FR, Fleckenstein CM, Barber-Westin SD. The development of postoperative knee chondrolysis after intra-articular pain pump infusion of an anesthetic medication: a series of twenty-one cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (16) 1448-1457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rapley JH, Beavis RC, Barber FA. Glenohumeral chondrolysis after shoulder arthroscopy associated with continuous bupivacaine infusion. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (12) 1367-1373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Casati A, Putzu M. Bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine: are they clinically different?. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2005; 19 (02) 247-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Casati A, Fanelli G, Albertin A. et al. Interscalene brachial plexus anesthesia with either 0.5% ropivacaine or 0.5% bupivacaine. Minerva Anestesiol 2000; 66 (1–2): 39-44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Arthur GR, Feldman HS, Covino BG. Comparative pharmacokinetics of bupivacaine and ropivacaine, a new amide local anesthetic. Anesth Analg 1988; 67 (11) 1053-1058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hu D, Onel E, Singla N, Kramer WG, Hadzic A. Pharmacokinetic profile of liposome bupivacaine injection following a single administration at the surgical site. Clin Drug Investig 2013; 33 (02) 109-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bergese SD, Onel E, Morren M, Morganroth J. Bupivacaine extended-release liposome injection exhibits a favorable cardiac safety profile. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2012; 37 (02) 145-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kirkness CS, Asche CV, Ren J. et al. Assessment of liposome bupivacaine infiltration versus continuous femoral nerve block for postsurgical analgesia following total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study. Curr Med Res Opin 2016; 32 (10) 1727-1733
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wu ZQ, Min JK, Wang D, Yuan YJ, Li H. Liposome bupivacaine for pain control after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2016; 11 (01) 84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hyland SJ, Deliberato DG, Fada RA, Romanelli MJ, Collins CL, Wasielewski RC. Liposomal bupivacaine versus standard periarticular injection in total knee arthroplasty with regional anesthesia: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (03) 488-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kendall MC, Castro Alves LJ, De Oliveira Jr G. Liposome bupivacaine compared to plain local anesthetics to reduce postsurgical pain: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain Res Treat 2018; 2018: 5710169-5710169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Food and Drug Administration. Safe opioid disposal: remove the risk outreach toolkit. Accessed January 27, 2022 at: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/safe-disposal-medicines/safe-opioid-disposal-remove-risk-outreach-toolkit
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Prescription opioids: what you need to know. Accessed January 27, 2022 at: https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/aha-patient-opioid-factsheet-a.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Tashjian RZ, Hung M, Keener JD. et al. Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26 (01) 144-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Diggle P, Diggle PJ, Heagerty P, Liang K-Y, Heagerty PJ, Zeger S. Analysis of Longitudinal Data. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hamilton TW, Athanassoglou V, Mellon S. et al. Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2 (02) CD011419
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Mont MA, Beaver WB, Dysart SH, Barrington JW, Del Gaizo DJ. Local infiltration analgesia with liposomal bupivacaine improves pain scores and reduces opioid use after total knee arthroplasty: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (01) 90-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Premkumar A, Samady H, Slone H, Hash R, Karas S, Xerogeanes J. Liposomal bupivacaine for pain control after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, positive-controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (07) 1680-1686
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Hamilton TW, Athanassoglou V, Trivella M. et al. Liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016 (08) CD011476
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Morris BJ, Mir HR. The opioid epidemic: impact on orthopaedic surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23 (05) 267-271
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Hajewski CJ, Westermann RW, Holte A, Shamrock A, Bollier M, Wolf BR. Impact of a standardized multimodal analgesia protocol on opioid prescriptions after common arthroscopic procedures. Orthop J Sports Med 2019;7(09):2325967119870753
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Moutzouros V, Jildeh TR, Khalil LS. et al. A multimodal protocol to diminish pain following common orthopedic sports procedures: can we eliminate postoperative opioids?. Arthroscopy 2020; 36 (08) 2249-2257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Farley KX, Anastasio AT, Kumar A, Premkumar A, Gottschalk MB, Xerogeanes J. Association between quantity of opioids prescribed after surgery or preoperative opioid use education with opioid consumption. JAMA 2019; 321 (24) 2465-2467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Goudman L, Smedt A, Forget P, Moens M. Determining the minimal clinical important difference for medication quantification scale III and morphine milligram equivalents in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (11) 3747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar