Pain Management Strategies in Hand Surgery.

Modern anesthetic agents have allowed for the rapid expansion of ambulatory surgery, particularly in hand surgery. The choice between general anesthesia, peripheral regional blocks, regional intravenous anesthesia (Bier block), local block with sedation, and the recently popularized wide-awake hand surgery depends on several variables, including the type and duration of the procedure and patient characteristics, coexisting conditions, location, and expected length of the procedure. This article discusses the various perioperative and postoperative analgesic options to optimize the hand surgical patients\u27 experience

A Cost Analysis of Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery Performed Wide Awake versus under Sedation.

BACKGROUND: Hand surgery under local anesthesia only has been used more frequently in recent years. The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative time and cost for carpal tunnel release performed under local anesthesia ( wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet, or WALANT) only to carpal tunnel release performed under intravenous sedation. METHODS: A retrospective comparison of intraoperative (operating room) surgical time and postoperative (postanesthesia care unit) time for consecutive carpal tunnel release procedures performed under both intravenous sedation and wide-awake local anesthesia was undertaken. All operations were performed by the same surgeon using the same mini-open surgical technique. A cost analysis was performed by means of standardized anesthesia billing based on base units, time, and conversion rates. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of total operative time, 28 minutes in the intravenous sedation group versus 26 minutes in the wide-awake local anesthesia group. Postanesthesia care unit times were significantly longer in the intravenous sedation group (84 minutes) compared to the wide-awake local anesthesia group (7 minutes). Depending on conversion rates used, a total of $139 to$432 was saved in each case performed with wide-awake local anesthesia by not using anesthesia services. In addition, a range of $1320 to$1613 was saved for the full episode of care, including anesthesia costs, operating room time, and postanesthesia care unit time for each patient undergoing wide-awake local anesthesia carpal tunnel release. CONCLUSION: Carpal tunnel release surgery performed with the wide-awake local anesthesia technique offers significant reduction in cost for use of anesthesia and postanesthesia care unit resources

Trigger Finger Release Performed Wide Awake: Prospective Comparison of Local Anesthetics

Introduction: Trigger fi­nger (TF) is one of the most common conditions treated by hand surgeons with a lifetime risk up to 10% in patients with diabetes. If conservative management fails, surgical treatment is undertaken, with or without sedation and a tourniquet, via a small incision to release the A1 pulley. A number of local anesthetics are readily available including Lidocaine, Ropivacaine and Marcaine as well as encapsulated formulations thereof such as Exparel. Since it’s approval in 2011, there have been numerous reports of successfully achieving prolonged pain relief with locally injected Exparel after various procedures, but to the best of our knowledge there have been no reports of its use in ambulatory hand surgery. In this study we prospectively evaluated the efficacy of Lidocaine, Marcaine, or bupivacaine with post-operative Exparel in controlling pain, opioid usage, and adverse reactions following TF surgery

Antibiotic Modification of Native Grafts: Improving upon nature\u27s scaffolds

The use of allograft bone in orthopaedics, spine surgery and dentistry is invaluable for helping restore bone defects and promote osteointegration. However, one, and perhaps the most important, problem associated with the use of allograft is infection. It is a devastating complication for patients and physicians alike, and necessitates repeated surgeries, extended treatment and often times results in increased morbidity and poor outcomes. Previous attempts to incorporate antibiotics into allograft by soaking the graft in antibiotic solution have enjoyed limited success in providing adequate protection against bacterial colonization. To overcome problems associated with controlled release systems, I have described a novel chemical modification that allows for the attachment of vancomycin, or other antibiotics, to free amines of allograft bone thus rendering the graft bactericidal over a long time period. This modification, as evaluated by immunohistochemistry, allowed for the uniform and stable attachment of antibiotics to allograft without adversely affecting its potential for incorporation with bone. Modified allograft, placed in the presence of S. aureus, did not allow colonization by bacteria as evaluated by fluorescent imaging, scanning microscopy, and direct bacterial counts. More importantly, inhibition of bacterial colonization resulted in prevention of biofilm formation. Furthermore, I show that the spectrum of activity of the parent antibiotic was maintained, as the construct was not active against E. coli challenges. Comparison of this technology with simple antibiotic incorporation demonstrated that the covalently-coupled antibiotic did not elute from the bone, but rather remained attached and active on the surface for times out to one year, times that are far longer than currently can be achieved with the elution technologies. Despite its potent activity against bacteria, modified bone remained biocompatible allowing attachment of osteoblastic-like cells with no increased toxicity. Furthermore, the antibiotic-modified allograft incorporated well into tibial defects in the rat. Finally, this construct was efficacious in decreasing the severity of infection and host reaction when impacted in an in vivo model of allograft-associated infection. Thus, our proposed modification in surface design serves as a starting point for the development of a new generation of bone grafts that are biologically active at sites of physiological importance

Bacterial Colonization of Bone Allografts: Establishment and Effects of Antibiotics

Background: Bone grafts are frequently used to supplement bone stock and to establish structural stability. However, graft-associated infection represents a challenging complication leading to increased patient morbidity and healthcare costs. Questions/purposes: We therefore designed this study to (1) determine if increasing initial S. aureus inoculation of bone allograft results in a proportionate increase in colonization; (2) assess if antibiotics decrease colonization and if antibiotic tethering to allograft alters its ability to prevent bacterial colonization; and (3) determine if covalent modification alters the allograft topography or its biological properties. Methods: Allograft bone and vancomycin-modified bone (VAN-bone) was challenged with different doses of S. aureus for times out to 24 hours in the presence or absence of solution vancomycin. Bacterial colonization was assessed by fluorescence, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and by direct colony counting. Cell density and distribution of osteoblast-like cells on control and modified allograft were then compared. Results: Bacterial attachment was apparent within 6 hours with colonization and biofilm formation increasing with time and dose. Solution vancomycin failed to prevent bacterial attachment whereas VAN-bone successfully resisted colonization. The allograft modification did not affect the attachment and distribution of osteoblast-like cells. Conclusions: Allograft bone was readily colonized by S. aureus and covered by a biofilm with especially florid growth in natural topographic niches. Using a novel covalent modification, allograft bone was able to resist colonization by organisms while retaining the ability to allow adhesion of osteoblastic cells. Clinical Relevance: Generation of allograft bone that can resist infection in vivo would be important in addressing one of the most challenging problems associated with the use of allograft, namely infection. © 2010 The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons®