一项前瞻性队列研究:用布比卡因脂质体代替利多卡因可减少膝关节骨性关节炎关节内治疗后出现的注射不良事件的发生率。

IF 12.5 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Junqing Lin, Tao Gao, Lenian Zhou, Tiexin Liu, Qiuke Wang, Zixuan Lin, Hongyi Zhu
{"title":"一项前瞻性队列研究:用布比卡因脂质体代替利多卡因可减少膝关节骨性关节炎关节内治疗后出现的注射不良事件的发生率。","authors":"Junqing Lin, Tao Gao, Lenian Zhou, Tiexin Liu, Qiuke Wang, Zixuan Lin, Hongyi Zhu","doi":"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local anesthetics as a part of intraarticular therapies (IATs) are widely used for treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Whether the substitution of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) for lidocaine is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of injection-emergent adverse events (AEs) after IATs remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited outpatients who had a clinical diagnosis of KOA and decided to receive IATs from November 2023 to April 2024. The type of IATs (glucocorticoids, platelet-rich plasma, and hyaluronic acid) for each participant was decided by the preference of patients after consulting with his or her treating physicians. Using lidocaine or LB as local anesthetics was determined by enrollment timing due to considerations of safety. The primary outcome was injection-emergent AEs after IATs. Secondary outcome measures included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 123 and 103 patients, respectively, received lidocaine and LB according to their enrollment date. Compared with lidocaine, using LB yielded a reduced incidence of AEs in the overall 2 weeks (LB vs. lidocaine, 30.1% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.018) and week 1 (LB vs. lidocaine, 23.3% vs. 39.8%, P = 0.008). After adjusting for sex, baseline body mass index, age, baseline WOMAC pain subscale score, and K-L grade, the substitution of LB for lidocaine was significantly associated with the reduced incidence of AEs in 2 weeks (OR, 0.484; 95% CI, 0.274-0.853; P = 0.012). In the initial 3 days, the LB groups reported better outcomes in terms of VAS pain score (change from baseline of VAS pain, LB vs. lidocaine, day 1 -8.3 ± 8.9 vs. -1.9 ± 9.3, P < 0.001; day 2 -20.6 ± 16.1 vs. -13.7 ± 19.4, P = 0.005; day 3 -22.3 ± 18.5 vs. -16.3 ± 19.3, P = 0.020). The changes from the baseline of the WOMAC pain subscale at day 14 were similar between the two groups (LB vs. lidocaine, -32.2 ± 11.7 vs. -29.4 ± 11.3, P = 0.073).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With the substitution of LB for lidocaine, patients might have reported reduced incidence of AEs, mainly derived from the superiority in week 1. The substitution of LB for lidocaine was safe in different scenarios of IATs, and future randomized clinical trials were warranted by the current study.</p>","PeriodicalId":14401,"journal":{"name":"International journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1904-1910"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Substitution of liposomal bupivacaine for lidocaine reduces incidence of injection-emergent adverse events after intraarticular therapies for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Junqing Lin, Tao Gao, Lenian Zhou, Tiexin Liu, Qiuke Wang, Zixuan Lin, Hongyi Zhu\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002192\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local anesthetics as a part of intraarticular therapies (IATs) are widely used for treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Whether the substitution of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) for lidocaine is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of injection-emergent adverse events (AEs) after IATs remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited outpatients who had a clinical diagnosis of KOA and decided to receive IATs from November 2023 to April 2024. The type of IATs (glucocorticoids, platelet-rich plasma, and hyaluronic acid) for each participant was decided by the preference of patients after consulting with his or her treating physicians. Using lidocaine or LB as local anesthetics was determined by enrollment timing due to considerations of safety. The primary outcome was injection-emergent AEs after IATs. Secondary outcome measures included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this study, 123 and 103 patients, respectively, received lidocaine and LB according to their enrollment date. Compared with lidocaine, using LB yielded a reduced incidence of AEs in the overall 2 weeks (LB vs. lidocaine, 30.1% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.018) and week 1 (LB vs. lidocaine, 23.3% vs. 39.8%, P = 0.008). After adjusting for sex, baseline body mass index, age, baseline WOMAC pain subscale score, and K-L grade, the substitution of LB for lidocaine was significantly associated with the reduced incidence of AEs in 2 weeks (OR, 0.484; 95% CI, 0.274-0.853; P = 0.012). In the initial 3 days, the LB groups reported better outcomes in terms of VAS pain score (change from baseline of VAS pain, LB vs. lidocaine, day 1 -8.3 ± 8.9 vs. -1.9 ± 9.3, P < 0.001; day 2 -20.6 ± 16.1 vs. -13.7 ± 19.4, P = 0.005; day 3 -22.3 ± 18.5 vs. -16.3 ± 19.3, P = 0.020). The changes from the baseline of the WOMAC pain subscale at day 14 were similar between the two groups (LB vs. lidocaine, -32.2 ± 11.7 vs. -29.4 ± 11.3, P = 0.073).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With the substitution of LB for lidocaine, patients might have reported reduced incidence of AEs, mainly derived from the superiority in week 1. The substitution of LB for lidocaine was safe in different scenarios of IATs, and future randomized clinical trials were warranted by the current study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1904-1910\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002192\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002192","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:局部麻醉剂作为关节内治疗(IATs)的一部分被广泛应用于膝关节骨性关节炎(KOA)的治疗。用布比卡因脂质体(LB)替代利多卡因是否安全有效地降低IATs后注射不良事件的发生率尚不清楚。方法:我们从2023年11月至2024年4月招募临床诊断为KOA并决定接受IATs治疗的门诊患者。每个参与者的IAT类型(糖皮质激素、富血小板血浆和透明质酸)是在咨询了他或她的治疗医生后由患者的偏好决定的。出于安全性考虑,局部麻醉剂是利多卡因还是LB由入组时间决定。主要结局是注射后出现的不良事件。次要结果测量包括视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分和西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)疼痛亚量表评分。结果:本研究根据入组日期分别有123例和103例患者接受利多卡因和LB治疗。与利多卡因相比,使用LB可降低整个两周(LB vs利多卡因,30.1% vs 45.5%, P = 0.018)和第1周(LB vs利多卡因,23.3% vs 39.8%, P = 0.008)的AE发生率。在调整性别、基线BMI、年龄、基线WOMAC疼痛亚量表评分和K-L分级后,用LB替代利多卡因与两周内AE发生率降低显著相关(OR [95%CI], 0.484 [0.274-0.853], P = 0.012)。在最初的三天,LB组在VAS疼痛评分方面报告了更好的结果(从VAS疼痛基线变化,LB与利多卡因,第1天- 8.3±8.9比- 1.9±9.3,P结论:用LB替代利多卡因,患者可能报告ae的发生率降低,主要来自于第1周的优势。在不同情况下,用LB替代利多卡因是安全的,目前的研究证实了未来的随机临床试验是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Substitution of liposomal bupivacaine for lidocaine reduces incidence of injection-emergent adverse events after intraarticular therapies for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study.

Background: Local anesthetics as a part of intraarticular therapies (IATs) are widely used for treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Whether the substitution of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) for lidocaine is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of injection-emergent adverse events (AEs) after IATs remains unclear.

Methods: We recruited outpatients who had a clinical diagnosis of KOA and decided to receive IATs from November 2023 to April 2024. The type of IATs (glucocorticoids, platelet-rich plasma, and hyaluronic acid) for each participant was decided by the preference of patients after consulting with his or her treating physicians. Using lidocaine or LB as local anesthetics was determined by enrollment timing due to considerations of safety. The primary outcome was injection-emergent AEs after IATs. Secondary outcome measures included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale score.

Results: In this study, 123 and 103 patients, respectively, received lidocaine and LB according to their enrollment date. Compared with lidocaine, using LB yielded a reduced incidence of AEs in the overall 2 weeks (LB vs. lidocaine, 30.1% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.018) and week 1 (LB vs. lidocaine, 23.3% vs. 39.8%, P = 0.008). After adjusting for sex, baseline body mass index, age, baseline WOMAC pain subscale score, and K-L grade, the substitution of LB for lidocaine was significantly associated with the reduced incidence of AEs in 2 weeks (OR, 0.484; 95% CI, 0.274-0.853; P = 0.012). In the initial 3 days, the LB groups reported better outcomes in terms of VAS pain score (change from baseline of VAS pain, LB vs. lidocaine, day 1 -8.3 ± 8.9 vs. -1.9 ± 9.3, P < 0.001; day 2 -20.6 ± 16.1 vs. -13.7 ± 19.4, P = 0.005; day 3 -22.3 ± 18.5 vs. -16.3 ± 19.3, P = 0.020). The changes from the baseline of the WOMAC pain subscale at day 14 were similar between the two groups (LB vs. lidocaine, -32.2 ± 11.7 vs. -29.4 ± 11.3, P = 0.073).

Conclusion: With the substitution of LB for lidocaine, patients might have reported reduced incidence of AEs, mainly derived from the superiority in week 1. The substitution of LB for lidocaine was safe in different scenarios of IATs, and future randomized clinical trials were warranted by the current study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Surgery (IJS) has a broad scope, encompassing all surgical specialties. Its primary objective is to facilitate the exchange of crucial ideas and lines of thought between and across these specialties.By doing so, the journal aims to counter the growing trend of increasing sub-specialization, which can result in "tunnel-vision" and the isolation of significant surgical advancements within specific specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信