Optimizing Pain and Rehabilitation After Knee Arthroplasty: A Two-Center, Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This randomized trial compared (1) continuous femoral nerve block (cFNB), (2) single femoral nerve block (sFNB), and (3) local infiltration analgesia (LIA) with respect to analgesic and functional outcomes after primary tricompartmental knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: One hundred twenty patients undergoing primary tricompartmental knee arthroplasty were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 interventions for postoperative analgesia: (1) cFNB-preoperative bolus of ropivacaine 0.5% 20 mL followed by ropivacaine 0.2% 5 mL per hour for 48 hours; (2) sFNB-preoperative bolus of ropivacaine 0.5% 20 mL with placebo 0.9% saline 5 mL per hour for 48 hours; or (3) LIA-intraoperative tricompartmental injection of ropivacaine 0.2% (150 mL) with epinephrine (10 µg/mL) and ketorolac 30 mg with femoral placebo 0.9% saline 20 mL preoperative bolus and 0.9% saline placebo 5 mL per hour for 48 hours. All participants received an identical, standardized, postoperative multimodal analgesic regimen. Participants, health care providers, data collectors, and analysts were blinded. All participants received identical perineural catheters and perineural/LIA solution (depending on randomized intervention) to maintain blinding. The primary outcome measure was numeric rating scale for pain (NRS) during physiotherapy on postoperative day (POD) 2 at 9:00 AM. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, NRS on POD 1 (rest/physiotherapy/worst), functional outcomes, and block complications. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, pain during physiotherapy on POD 2 at 9:00 AM, the overall analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was significant (P = .049), but pairwise comparisons did not demonstrate any significant differences between treatment arms. NRS was 4.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-6.0) for the cFNB group, 4.6 (95% CI, 3.3-6.0) for the sFNB group, and 3.4 (95% CI, 2.2-4.8) for the LIA group. The following is the mean difference in NRS on POD 2 at 9:00 AM among groups: cFNB-LIA (1.2, 95% CI, -0.1 to 2.5; P = .073); sFNB-LIA (1.2, 95% CI, -0.2 to 2.5; P = .097); cFNB-sFNB (0.0, 95% CI, -1.3 to 1.4; P = .996). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in cumulative 48-hour opioid consumption or functional outcomes. cFNB and LIA were superior to sFNB for NRS on POD 1 for worst pain experienced and pain during physiotherapy, respectively. There were no adverse events associated with study procedures reported among participants in the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest no clinically significant differences between cFNB, LIA, and sFNB for pain during physiotherapy on POD 2 after TKA. Secondary analyses suggest that cFNB and LIA are superior to sFNB for early analgesic outcomes (NRS on POD 1) after TKA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".