Total knee replacement (TKR) is continuously increasing with significantly faster recovery times. Soft tissue pain and edema of operated limbs play an important role in early functional recovery. The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of Kinesiotaping and Lymphatic drainage for the containment of pain and edema as well as the improvement of the range of motion of the knee as integration with standard postoperative rehabilitation. Ninety-nine TKR patients were included in the randomized clinical trial and divided into three groups: Kinesiotaping and Lymphatic drainage Group, Lymphatic drainage Group, and Kinesiotaping Group. The assessment was carried out on days 2-4-6 postoperation. All the patients had also standard reeducation sessions. It was observed that both Kinesiotaping and Lymphatic drainage was useful in reducing pain and edema. A significantly higher improvement was observed in the group in which Lymphatic drainage was associated with Kinesiotaping with respect to the individual treatments, for pain and leg circumference over and under the knee, and at the ankle. Range of motion of the knee did not show any difference since the flexion degree was similar in all the three groups. No difference was found between Kinesiotaping and Lymphatic drainage. In conclusion, the treatment with a combination Kinesiotaping and Lymphatic drainage provided better results on pain and edema observed as early as the first days after the intervention, thus may be considered a valid support for standard rehabilitation and pharmacological intervention.

Total hip replacement (THR) and, particularly, total knee replacement (TKR), are painful surgical procedures. Effective postoperative pain management leads to a better and earlier functional recovery and prevents chronic pain. Studies on the control of pain during the postoperative rehabilitation period are not common. The aim of this study is to present results of a perioperative anesthetic protocol, and a pain treatment protocol in use in the Orthopaedic and the Rehabilitation intensive units of our Hospital. 100 patients (50 THR and 50 TKR) were retrospectively included in this observational study. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain at rest registered in the clinical sheet was retrieved for all patients and analyzed with respect to the spinal anaesthesia given for the surgery, local analgesia, analgesia protocol adopted during the postoperative days in the Orthopaedic Unit, the antalgic treatment given during the stay within the Rehabilitation Unit, the postoperative consumption of rescue pain medication, and any collateral effect due to the analgesic therapy. Patients reached standard functional abilities (walking at least 50 meters and climbing/descending stairs) at a mean length of 8 days without medication-related complications. Mean NRS during the time of stay was 1.3 ± 0.3 for THR and 1.3 ± 0.2 for TKR) and maximum mean NRS was 1.8 ± 0.5 for TKR and 1.8 ± 0.6 for THR. The use of rescue therapy in the rehabilitation guard was correlated with the mean NRS pain and the maximum NRS pain. A very good control of pain with the perioperative anesthetic protocol and pain treatment protocol in use was obtained.

Background This prospective, randomised, observer-blinded study has been conducted in patients undergoing procedures of the lower extremities to evaluate the time to complete block resolution of 2-chloroprocaine 1% at three intrathecal doses (30, 40 and 50 mg). Methods After informed consent, we enrolled 45 male and female patients, aged 18–65 years, ASA score I-II, BMI 18–32 kg/m2, undergoing elective lower limb procedures lasting ≤40 min and with a requested dermatomeric level of sensory block ≥ T12. The patients were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive Chloroprocaine HCl 1% at one of the three different intrathecal doses (Group 30 = 30 mg, Group 40 = 40 mg or Group 50 = 50 mg). The progression and regression of both sensory and motor blocks were evaluated blindly. Urine and venous blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. Results Times to regression of spinal blocks were 1.76 ± 0.35 h, 2.13 ± 0.46 h and 2.23 ± 0.38 h, in Group 30, 40 and 50 respectively: the 30 mg dose showed a significantly faster resolution of spinal block than the 40 mg (p = 0.034) and the 50 mg (p = 0.006). Time to readiness for surgery was significantly reduced with the dose of 50 mg when compared to dose of 30 mg (p = 0.0259). Conclusions The doses of 50 mg and 40 mg yielded a longer resolution of spinal block than the dose of 30 mg. Nevertheless, the dose of 30 mg resulted in a higher secondary failure rate. Trial registration Registration of clinical trial: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02481505).

Mirror therapy is a widely used treatment for phantom limb pain (PLP) relief in patients with limb loss. Less common is progressive muscle relaxation (PMR), used mostly in other medical conditions (psychological, terminal cancer pain, etc). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a mirror therapy preceded by PMR intervention compared to mirror therapy preceded by unguided generic relaxation-mirror therapy in patients with lower limb amputation suffering from PLP. This pilot study was a single-blind, controlled, randomized trial. Thirty lower limb amputees suffering from PLP were recruited and randomly assigned to three groups respectively undergoing a PMR-mirror therapy rehabilitative intervention, generic relaxation-mirror therapy, and conventional physiotherapy (ConvPT). Selected items from Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) were used to test the pain features at the beginning and 1 week after 3 weeks of intervention. A decrease of about 65% was found in the rate and duration of PLP at the PEQ in PMR-mirror therapy with respect to generic relaxation-mirror therapy (about 30%) and ConvPT (about 6%). A decrease of about 90% in intensity (worst and average) of PLP in PMR-mirror therapy when compared to generic relaxation-mirror therapy (about 45%) and ConvPT (about 20%) was found at the BPI. We preliminary concluded, albeit with limitations due to the small sample of patients, that mirror therapy can improve PLP when associated with PMR. Further studies are required to confirm that PMR could be an effective technique for more successful PLP management.

No abstract