Background:Pain is one of the major concerns of patients underwent Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA); appropriate pain management is a key factor in patient's early physical fitness to move, physiotherapy, and most importantly, patient satisfaction.Objectives:In this study the analgesic effect of single injection femoral nerve block (SFNB) was compared with local infiltration analgesia (LIA).Patients and Methods:Forty patients who underwent TKA under spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive single femoral nerve block (group F) or intra-periarticular infiltration (group I). Group F received single injection 20cc ropivacaine (10mg/cc) and in group I, a combination of 300mg ropivacaine, 30mg ketorolac and 0.5mg epinephrine diluted to a volume of 150cc and locally injected in and around the knee joint in 3 stages. Postoperative pain intensity measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Morphine consumption, mobilization time and patients’ satisfaction evaluated as well.Results:Group I had significantly lower morphine consumption in the first postoperative day (10 vs. 12.5mg, P-value < 0.05). Within 6 hours postoperatively, VAS score was statistically lower in group I compared to group F (3 vs. 4, P-value < 0.05). However, within 12 hours it was statistically higher in group I than group F (6 vs. 5, P-value < 0.05). Other parameters were not statistically different in two groups.Conclusions:Both methods LIA and SFNB provided excellent pain relief and lower morphine consumption following TKA. LIA is a surgeon-controlled analgesic technique, which can be used to enhance patients’ satisfaction and reduce the pain in the very early postoperative period by surgeon independently.

IntroductionOsteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic joint disease that usually occurs in older people and leads to pain and disabilities. OA treatment ranges from drug therapy to surgery. Drug and rehabilitation therapy are preferred over surgery, and, especially, there is a tendency toward compounds causing regenerative changes in the knee joint. In the present study, the effects of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection and prolotherapy (PRL) were examined on the level of pain and function of the knee joint in patients with OA.MethodologyAfter fulfilling the inclusion criteria and signing the informed consent form, 42 patients with knee OA were scheduled for intra-articular injection in the present randomized, double-blind, clinical trial. Following admission to the operating pain room, the condition of the patient’s knee was evaluated first via the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and, then, ultrasound-guided knee injection was done. Accordingly, patients in the PRP therapy group received 7 mL PRP solution and those in the PRL group received 7 mL 25% dextrose. Using the WOMAC, levels of pain and knee function were evaluated and recorded for each patient immediately prior to the first injection as well as at 1 month (immediately prior to the second injection), 2 months (a month after the second injection), and 6 months later. Data collected were analyzed using the SPSS v.20.ResultsDuring the first and second months, a rapid decrease in the overall WOMAC score was observed in both groups. The overall WOMAC score increased at the sixth month, but was lower than the overall WOMAC score in the first month. Statistical analysis indicated that the overall WOMAC score significantly decreased in both groups of patients over 6 months.ConclusionResults of the present study suggested a significant decrease in the overall WOMAC score of patients who undergo either PRP therapy or PRL. This positive change in the overall WOMAC score led to an improvement in the quality of life of patients with knee OA shortly after the first injection. PRP injection is more effective than PRL in the treatment of knee OA.

BackgroundPost-operative pain and the administration of opioids to relieve it, is considered to be one of the important issues in surgery wards. This issue is even more significant in obese patients, because of the side effects of opioids. Pregabalin is an analog of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) which can be effective in dealing with post-operative pain.ObjectivesThis study will consider the effect of oral pregabalin in relieving the pain of obese patients after gastric bypass surgery.Patients and MethodsIn a double blind clinical trial, 60 candidates for laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery were enrolled in the study through convenience and non-random sequential sampling, into two groups; pregabalin group and control group. Inclusion criteria consisted of: morbid obesity with a body mass index (BMI) > 35, age 18–50, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status I or II, and willingness to take part in the study. Patients in the pregabalin group received 300 mg of oral pregabalin on the morning of the surgery. Post-operative pain was controlled by the patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) method, an AutoMed infusion pump containing 20 mg of morphine and normal saline (total volume 100 cc) was administered to all patients after surgery. Patients’ level of pain were compared by considering their pain intensity on a visual analog scale (VAS), and the occurrence of nausea/vomiting from recovery, until 24 hours after surgery.ResultsA total of 60 patients were compared; 30 patients in each of the pregabalin and control groups. Both groups were similar in age and sex distribution. Mean pain intensity levels during the whole follow up were lower in the pregabalin group than in the control group, up to a maximum of 24 hours after the operation (P < 0.001). Incidence of nausea/vomiting was greater in the control group than in the pregabalin group (P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe findings of this study indicate that oral pregabalin (300 mg dose) can alleviate patients’ pain and nausea/vomiting and notably reduce adverse effects.

BackgroundSpinal block is a common procedure for lower limbs surgery. Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid and dexmedetomidine, a selective α2 agonist have been used as adjuvants in spinal anesthesia to prolong intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. The aim of current study is to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl added to intrathecal bupivacaine in orthopedic procedures in lower limbs.MethodsIn this randomized clinical trial, 90 patients undergoing elective lower limb surgeries were randomly allocated to three groups. Via intrathecal approach, the patients received 2.5 ml hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% plus 5 micrograms dexmedetomidine (BD group), 25 micrograms fentanyl (BF group) or 0.5 ml normal saline (BN group), respectively. Time to reach the complete motor block, the highest sensory level, regression from block, analgesic request and duration of the drug effect, hemodynamic changes and side effects were compared between the groups.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the groups regrading time to reach complete motor block, but time to reach the highest sensory level was shorter in group BD than group BF (6.28 ± 1.75 vs. 7.17 ± 1.45, p = 0.03). Group BD had significantly lower mean of NRS 6 h after operation (1.90 ± 0.84 vs. 6.16 ± 1.44 vs. 6.30 ± 1.17, p < 0.001) and longer duration to regress to Bromage 0 (331.60 ± 73.96 vs. 185.56 ± 35.87 vs. 147.03 ± 33.05 min, p < 0.001), to analgesic request (496.63 ± 70.19 vs. 296.33 ± 44.83 vs. 221.83 ± 22.26 min, p < 0.001), to regress two sensory levels (149.00 ± 23.17 vs. 88.90 ± 12.85 vs. 69.33 ± 6.67 min, p < 0.001) and to regress to S1 (560.53 ± 81.86 vs. 329.83 ± 44.10 vs. 241.83 ± 22.26 min, p < 0.001). Serial changes in SBP (p = 0.006), DBP (p = 0.03) and HR (p = 0.002) in group BF were significantly higher than the other two groups. The three groups had comparable side effects.ConclusionsUsing dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in lower limb surgeries has longer duration of sensory and motor block and longer postoperative analgesia.Trial registrationIRCT registration number: IRCT2017041010599N15, 24 May 2017.

Context:Liver plays an important role in metabolism and physiological homeostasis in the body. This organ is unique in its structure and physiology. So it is necessary for an anesthesiologist to be familiar with various hepatic pathophysiologic conditions and consequences of liver dysfunction.Evidence Acquisition:We searched MEDLINE (Pub Med, OVID, MD Consult), SCOPUS and the Cochrane database for the following keywords: liver disease, anesthesia and liver disease, regional anesthesia in liver disease, epidural anesthesia in liver disease and spinal anesthesia in liver disease, for the period of 1966 to 2013.Results:Although different anesthetic regimens are available in modern anesthesia world, but anesthetizing the patients with liver disease is still really tough. Spinal or epidural anesthetic effects on hepatic blood flow and function is not clearly investigated, considering both the anesthetic drug-induced changes and outcomes. Regional anesthesia might be used in patients with advanced liver disease. In these cases lower drug dosages are used, considering the fact that locally administered drugs have less systemic effects. In case of general anesthesia it seems that using inhalation agents (Isoflurane, Desflurane or Sevoflurane), alone or in combination with small doses of fentanyl can be considered as a reasonable regimen. When administering drugs, anesthetist must realize and consider the substantially changed pharmacokinetics of some other anesthetic drugs.Conclusions:Despite the fact that anesthesia in chronic liver disease is a scary and pretty challenging condition for every anesthesiologist, this hazard could be diminished by meticulous attention on optimizing the patient’s condition preoperatively and choosing appropriate anesthetic regimen and drugs in this setting. Although there are paucity of statistics and investigations in this specific group of patients but these little data show that with careful monitoring and considering the above mentioned rules a safe anesthesia could be achievable in these patients.