scholarly journals Ultra Low-Dose Naloxone and Tramadol/Acetaminophen in Elderly Patients Undergoing Joint Replacement Surgery: A Pilot Study

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ngozi N Imasogie ◽  
Sudha Singh ◽  
James T Watson ◽  
Debbie Hurley ◽  
Patricia Morley-Forster

OBJECTIVE: A pilot study was conducted to assess whether both the rationale and feasibility exist for future randomized clinical trials to evaluate the combined use of naloxone infusion and tramadol/acetaminophen as opioid-sparing drugs in elderly patients undergoing lower extremity joint replacement surgery.DESIGN: Ten patients 70 years of age or older undergoing either total knee (n=7) or total hip (n=3) arthroplasty were treated prospectively. Each patient received two tablets of tramadol/acetaminophen (Tramacet; Janssen-Ortho Inc, Canada) preoperatively and every 6 h postoperatively, as well as a naloxone infusion started preoperatively at 0.25 μg/kg/h and continued up to 48 h postoperatively. In addition, standard intraoperative care was provided with 0.2 mg of intrathecal morphine, 1.4 mL of 0.75% bupivacaine, and an intra-articular infiltration of 100 mL of 0.3% ropivacaine and 30 mg of ketorolac, as well as standard postoperative morphine via patient-controlled analgesia orders and celecoxib 200 mg twice daily for five days.OUTCOME MEASURES: Compared with seven historical controls, also 70 years of age or older, who had undergone either a total knee (n=4) or total hip (n=3) arthroplasty, postoperative opioid use was reduced by 80%. Except for transient nausea and vomiting in 40% and 20% of patients, respectively, the 10 patients on tramadol/acetaminophen and naloxone tolerated the new regimen without difficulty.CONCLUSION: Consequently, a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial comparing standard therapy versus standard therapy plus these two drugs seems warranted. In such a trial, it would require approximately 20 subjects per treatment arm to detect a 80% decrease in morphine use.

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Lynette Walters ◽  
Shylie Mackintosh ◽  
Lorraine Sheppard

Objectives. Despite the incidence of joint replacements in Australia, there is a paucity of information regarding how patients progress from their referral to their surgery. The aim of this study was to describe a patient pathway from referral to receipt of total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) surgery in South Australian public hospitals. Methods. Patient perspectives of the pathway to THR and TKR surgery were obtained via a postal survey (n = 450) and hospital employee perspectives were attained via semi-structured interviews (n = 19). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and interview data were analysed thematically. Results. A typical patient pathway to THR and TKR surgery can be divided into two distinct phases; referral-to-initial appointment (9–24 months), and initial appointment-to-surgery (12–15 months). This gives an overall waiting period between 2 and 3 years for THR or TKR surgery. Conclusions. Waiting times for THR and TKR surgery reported in this study were longer than other reports in the literature. Current Australian health policy does not consider the first (and longest) phase of the patient pathway. Excluding this initial phase could be generating an erroneous perception of the patient pathway to THR or TKR surgery, possibly leading to poorly considered health reforms. What is known about the topic? Meeting the demand for elective surgery services in public hospitals is an ongoing challenge for governments and health systems alike. The persistent mismatch between supply and demand has resulted in the development of waiting lists for elective total hip replacement (THR) and total knee (TKR) replacement surgery in Australia. Current state-level health policies such as the Policy Framework and Associated Procedural Guidelines for Elective Surgery Services in South Australia or the Elective Surgery Access Policy in Victoria, outline a generic pathway consisting of a few linear steps that occur immediately before receipt of surgery, without consideration of the early stages of the journey. Aside from these types of policies, we were unable to identify any published literature outlining the patient journey from referral to receipt of THR or TKR surgery. As such, our understanding of the issue is inadequate due the paucity of existing research evidence. What does this paper add? Our current understanding of the patient journey to THR and TKR surgery is limited to the perspective of the policy-makers, whose focus is the organisation of waiting lists and the systematic progression of an individual through the elective surgery system. This perspective reinforces the assumption that it is a simple, linear process and may lead to erroneous judgements regarding the impact that the patient pathway has on an individual and the time it takes to progress along that pathway. This study presents the patient pathway from the perspective of individuals working within the systems responsible for delivering THR and TKR surgery and from patients who have received a joint replacement in a South Australian public hospital. As such, this paper provides new insight into the length, impact and features of the entire patient journey, rather than a snap-shot of the final stages. What are the implications for practitioners? This study is the first step towards better understanding of the patient pathway to joint replacement surgery in Australian public hospitals. Greater understanding of the complete pathway and identification of areas of congestion within the pathway, as evidenced by longer waiting periods, offers insight into areas with the potential for effective reforms. Should the patient pathway be significantly altered, the experience of practitioners responsible for the interim and postoperative management of patients undergoing THR and TKR surgery will also be changed. Additionally, practitioners currently frustrated by the long delays experienced by their patients who are in need of elective surgery in Australian public hospitals, could have that frustration abated by system improvements that reduce the length and complexity of the pathway to joint replacement surgery.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-75
Author(s):  
Eman Abd–Allah ◽  
Amira Mohammed ◽  
Gamalat Abd El-Ghany ◽  
Rehab Mohammed

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-99
Author(s):  
Liuliu Xiong ◽  
Meng Cui ◽  
Ziye Zhou ◽  
Minchen Wu ◽  
Quanming Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Joint replacement surgery provides articular cartilage samples for chondrocyte isolation. To our knowledge, the effect of the collagenase type on releasing of chondrocytes from the extracellular matrix of cartilage is not reported. Objectives To determine whether cartilage digested with collagenase IA yielded more chondrocytes than that digested with collagenase II and determine whether chondrocytes isolated with collagenase IA could be cultured in vitro. Methods Cartilage slices collected from 18 elderly patients who received joint replacement surgery (16 hips, 2 knees) were digested sequentially with 0.4% pronase E and 0.02% collagenase IA, or with 0.15% collagenase II alone, or sequentially with 0.4% pronase E and 0.02% collagenase II. We compared cell yield from each method. Cell viability by the most effective method was calculated and plotted. The morphology of cultured monolayer chondrocytes was recorded with a light microscope. Results Sequential digestion with pronase E and collagenase IA yielded 2566 ± 873 chondrocytes per mg wet cartilage, which was more effective than the other isolation methods (P = 0.018). The average chondrocyte viability could reach 84% ± 8% (n = 11). Light microscopic images showed typical chondrocyte morphology in monolayer cultures. Conclusion Sequential digestion of human articular cartilage with pronase E and collagenase IA was more effective than collagenase II alone or collagenase II combined with pronase E for releasing chondrocytes from extracellular matrix of cartilage. Chondrocytes isolated with this method could be maintained in monolayer cultures for at least 2 passages with unaltered morphology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document