What Is the Role of a Periarticular Injection for Knee Arthroplasty Patients Receiving a Multimodal Analgesia Regimen Incorporating Adductor Canal and Infiltration Between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Knee Blocks?

BACKGROUND:

Optimal analgesic protocols for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients remain controversial. Multimodal analgesia is advocated, often including peripheral nerve blocks and/or periarticular injections (PAIs). If 2 blocks (adductor canal block [ACB] plus infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the knee [IPACK]) are used, also performing PAI may not be necessary. This noninferiority trial hypothesized that TKA patients with ACB + IPACK + saline PAI (sham infiltration) would have pain scores that were no worse than those of patients with ACB + IPACK + active PAI with local anesthetic.

METHODS:

A multimodal analgesic protocol of spinal anesthesia, ACB and IPACK blocks, intraoperative ketamine and ketorolac, postoperative ketorolac followed by meloxicam, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and oral opioids was used. Patients undergoing primary unilateral TKA were randomized to receive either active PAI or control PAI. The active PAI included a deep injection, performed before cementation, of bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine, 30 mL; morphine; methylprednisolone; cefazolin; with normal saline to bring total volume to 64 mL. A superficial injection of 20 mL bupivacaine, 0.25%, was administered before closure. Control injections were normal saline injected with the same injection technique and volumes. The primary outcome was numeric rating scale pain with ambulation on postoperative day 1. A noninferiority margin of 1.0 was used.

RESULTS:

Ninety-four patients were randomized. NRS pain with ambulation at POD1 in the ACB + IPACK + saline PAI group was not found to be noninferior to that of the ACB + IPACK + active PAI group (difference = 0.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], [−0.9 to 1.5], P = .120). Pain scores at rest did not differ significantly among groups. No significant difference was observed in opioid consumption between groups. Cumulative oral morphine equivalents through postoperative day 2 were 89 ± 40 mg (mean ± standard deviation), saline PAI, vs 73 ± 52, active PAI, P = .1. No significant differences were observed for worst pain, fraction of time in severe pain, pain interference, side-effects (nausea, drowsiness, itching, dizziness), quality of recovery, satisfaction, length of stay, chronic pain, and orthopedic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS:

For TKA patients given a comprehensive analgesic protocol, use of saline PAI did not demonstrate noninferiority compared to active PAI. Neither the primary nor any secondary outcomes demonstrated superiority for active PAI, however. As we cannot claim either technique to be better or worse, there remains flexibility for use of either technique.