Background: Ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca blocks have been used for pain control after hip arthroscopy. There is little evidence regarding their effectiveness in comparison with other pain control modalities in patients who have undergone hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided fascia iliac block with intra-articular ropivacaine in controlling pain after hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Between 2015 and 2017, patients (N = 95) undergoing hip arthroscopy were randomly assigned to 2 groups. The first group received an ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca block with 50 to 60 mL of 0.35% ropivacaine. The second group received an intra-articular injection of 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine at the completion of the surgical case. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores in the recovery room; at postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge; and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and PACU narcotic usage (converted to morphine equivalent use) as well as readmission rates, PACU recovery time, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Results: Postoperative pain across all points did not significantly differ between the groups. Intraoperative and PACU narcotics did not differ significantly between the groups. Readmission rates, PACU recovery time, and postoperative nausea and vomiting did not significantly differ between the groups. There were no associated complications in either group. Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca block for hip arthroscopy had no clinical advantage when compared with onetime intra-articular ropivacaine injection. Registration: NCT02365961 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).
Objectives:Ultrasound guided fascia-Iliaca blocks have been used for pain control following hip arthroscopy. There is little evidence regarding their effectiveness in comparison to other pain control modalities in hip arthroscopy patients. Purpose: To compare efficacy of ultrasound guided fascia iliac block with intra-articular ropivacaine in controlling pain after hip arthroscopy.Methods:Between 2015 and 2017, 95 patients undergoing hip arthroscopy were randomly assigned to 2 groups. The first group received an ultrasound-guided fascia-iliaca block with 50-60mLs of 0.35% ropivacaine. The second group received intra-articular injection of 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine at the completion of the surgical case. Primary outcomes were post-operative pain scores in the recovery room, at PACU discharge, at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and PACU narcotic usage (converted to morphine equivalent use) as well as readmission rates, PACU recovery time and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).Results:Postoperative pain across all points did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. Intraoperative and PACU narcotics did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Readmission rates, PACU recovery time and PONV did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. There were no associated complications in either group.Conclusion:Ultrasound guided fascia iliaca block for hip arthroscopy had no clinical advantage when compared to one time intra-articular ropivacaine injection. Furthermore, an intraarticular injection decreases costs and is a safe and more efficient modality for postoperative pain control following hip arthroscopy.
Purpose Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative for patients with prostates >80 mL and has demonstrated lower morbidity rates. We sought to evaluate PAE at a single tertiary medical center. Methods A retrospective review of all patients who underwent PAE was completed. Demographic, clinicopathologic, procedure, and outcome data were collected to include international prostatic symptom score (IPSS) and quality of life (QoL) assessments. Results The pre-PAE mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 8.4 ng/mL, mean prostate volume was 146.9 mL (9% >200 mL), and mean postvoid residual (PVR) was 208.2 mL (21.9% 200–300 mL). IPSS mean was 19.8 and QoL was “mostly dissatisfied.” Following PAE, mean PSA was reduced by 3.2 ng/mL (38.1%, p = 0.3014), the mean prostate volume reduction was 59.2 mL (40.3%, n = 19, p < 0.0001), and the average PVR reduction was 150.3 mL (72.2%, n = 27, p = 0.0002). Average IPSS score was also lower (11.9; 60.1%, n = 25, p < 0.0001) and QoL was reduced to “mostly satisfied” (p < 0.0001). Technical success was 100% with 24% minor morbidities. Conclusion PAE is a successful treatment for patients with BPH resulting in large prostates that are not good candidates for simple prostatectomy, providing optimal care with less operative and postoperative complications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.