Adductor Canal Block vs Liposomal Bupivacaine Periarticular Injection in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study compares postoperative pain scores and functional outcomes between liposomal bupivacaine peri-articular injection (LB-PAI) vs a single-shot adductor canal block (ACB) using bupivacaine HCl in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: This is a randomized controlled trial of 56 patients who were treated with TKA for arthritis. Patients were randomized to receive an intraoperative LB-PAI (n = 27) or preoperative ACB using bupivacaine HCl (n = 29). Both groups were otherwise given our institutional standard multimodal pain protocol. Data on Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, knee range of motion, postoperative ambulation distance, hospital length of stay, and opioid use were collected. The total cost of each intervention was compared at the conclusion of the study. RESULTS: Age, gender, or body mass index was similar between groups. Compared to the ACB group, the LB-PAI group trended to lower average VAS pain scores on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2 (average difference [95% confidence interval] = -0.5 [-0.7, 1.7], -1.0 [-0.1, 2.0], -0.2 [-0.8, 1.3]), and identical average VAS pain scores on postoperative days 4 and 7. These differences and all postoperative outcome measures were not statistically significant at any time point. A single 266-milligram vial of liposomal bupivacaine costs $351, and a single-shot ACB costs $893 at our institution. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial shows similar postoperative pain control, functional outcomes, and opioid use between LB-PAI and a single-shot ACB in patients undergoing primary TKA. However, the single-shot ACB costs $542 more than the LB-PAI at our institution.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".