Background: Opioids remain widely used for postoperative pain control after total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, concerns about adverse effects and dependency drive interest in opioid-sparing alternatives. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of opioid-sparing patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) after TKA. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study, 98 patients undergoing TKA under spinal anesthesia received either opioid-based PCA (continuous infusion of 1200 μg fentanyl, n = 49) or opioid-sparing PCA (continuous infusion of 150 mg ketorolac tromethamine and 100 mg nefopam hydrochloride, n = 49). Both groups received patient-controlled boluses of 300 μg fentanyl. The primary endpoint was the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at rest on postoperative day (POD) 1, assessed using a 1.5-point non-inferiority margin. Secondary endpoints included additional analgesics, mobility, postoperative pain at rest and during ambulation, and adverse effects on PODs 1 and 2. Results: The mean VAS score at rest on POD 1 was 5.45 ± 2.48 in the opioid-based PCA group and 5.90 ± 2.31 in the opioid-sparing PCA group. The mean difference was 0.45 points (95% CI, −0.36 to 1.25), within the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Pain scores at each time point were non-inferior in the opioid-sparing group, whereas rescue analgesic requirements were significantly reduced on POD 2 (P = 0.006). Nausea and vomiting on POD 1 were more frequent with opioid-based group (34.7% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.009). Conclusions Opioid-sparing PCA with ketorolac and nefopam provides non-inferior analgesia to opioid-based PCA, while reducing opioid consumption and drug-related adverse effects after TKA.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of our 4-week caregiver-mediated exercise (CME) in improving trunk control capacity, gait, and balance and in decreasing concerns about post-stroke falls when there is an increase in its efficacy. METHODS: Acute or subacute stroke survivors were assigned to either the trial group (n=35) or the control group (n=37). Changes in Modified Barthel Index (MBI), Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) scores at 4 weeks from baseline served as primary outcome measures. Correlations of primary outcome measures with changes in Fall Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) scores at 4 weeks from baseline in the trial group served as secondary outcome measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) served as safety outcome measures. RESULTS: There were significant differences in changes in MBI, FAC, BBS, TIS-T, TIS-D, TIS-C, and FES-I scores at 4 weeks from baseline between the two groups (all p < 0.0001). There were no significant (p=0.0755) differences in changes in TIS-S scores at 4 weeks from baseline between the two groups. MBI, FAC, BBS, and TIS scores showed significantly inverse correlations with FES-I scores in patients receiving CME. There were no TEAEs in our series. CONCLUSION: CME was effective and safe in improving the degree of independence, ambulation status, dynamic and static balance, trunk function, and concerns about post-stroke falls in stroke survivors.
Accidental Falls ; Caregivers ; Gait ; Humans ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Postural Balance ; Rehabilitation* ; Stroke ; Survivors ; Walking

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes following conservative treatment and arthroscopic repair in patients with a rotator cuff tear. METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients aged >50 years with a symptomatic rotator cuff tear were reviewed. The rotator cuff tendons were evaluated using ultrasonography, shoulder magnetic resonance imaging or MR arthrography, and the patients with either a high-grade partial-thickness or small-to-medium-sized (≤3 cm) full-thickness tear were included in this study. The primary outcome measures were a pain assessment score and range of motion (ROM) at 1-year follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the rate of tear progression or retear along with the rate of symptom aggravation after the treatments. RESULTS: A total of 357 patients were enrolled, including 183 patients that received conservative treatment and 174 patients who received an arthroscopic repair. The pain assessment score (p<0.001) and the ROM in forward flexion (p<0.001) were significantly improved in both groups. The ROM in internal rotation did not significantly change after conservative treatment and arthroscopic repair. The pain assessment score and ROM were not significantly different between the two groups. Retear was observed in 9.6% of patients who had an arthroscopic repair and tear progression was found in 6.7% of those who underwent conservative treatment. The proportion of aggravation for pain and ROM did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of conservative treatment is not inferior to arthroscopic repair for patients >50 years old with a less than medium-sized rotator cuff tear in a 1-year follow-up period. Further study is warranted to find the optimal combination of conservative treatment for a symptomatic rotator cuff tear.
Arthrography ; Arthroscopy ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Observational Study* ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Pain Measurement ; Range of Motion, Articular ; Retrospective Studies* ; Rotator Cuff* ; Shoulder ; Tears* ; Tendon Injuries ; Tendons ; Treatment Outcome ; Ultrasonography