To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Local anaesthetic vs saline infusion for iliac bone graft donor site pain in AIS

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
December 2016

Local anaesthetic vs saline infusion for iliac bone graft donor site pain in AIS

Vol: 5| Issue: 12| Number:1| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Efficacy of Postoperative Pain Management Using Continuous Local Anesthetic Infusion at the Iliac Crest Bone Graft Site in Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Parallel, Double-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

Global Spine J. 2016 May;6(3):220-8.

Contributing Authors:
D Samartzis C Bow JP Cheung P Sham KC Mak WY Cheung YW Wong KD Luk KM Cheung JC Lawmin

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

12 adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis were included in this pilot study and randomized to receive either continuous infusion of anesthetic (0.25% levobupivacaine) or saline at the iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) donor site for the purpose of assessing effect on postoperative donor site pain, overall pain, potential donor site complication, and adverse effects throughout a five-day post-surgery pe...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue