English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Since being reported in 2008, high volume local infiltration analgesia (HVLIA) has rapidly gained popularity for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement. We undertook this review to investigate whether there was evidence for equivalence of HVLIA compared to peripheral nerve block techniques with respect to early postoperative analgesia and functional recovery, or for other outcomes such as cost and process efficiency, persistent postsurgical pain and arthroplasty revision rate. We found that despite the popularity of HVLIA, supporting evidence for its use is currently limited. HVLIA certainly provides postoperative analgesia, but it is not clear whether it is equivalent to contemporary peripheral nerve block techniques in terms of either analgesia or early or later functional outcome in the context of a modern, comprehensive enhanced recovery program. Nor is it possible to state whether HVLIA provides benefits in terms of persistent postsurgical pain or cost and process efficiency. Well designed trials directly comparing peripheral nerve block with a standardised HVLIA technique are urgently required.

High Volume Local Infiltration Analgesia Compared to Peripheral Nerve Block for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty—What is the Evidence?