Description

The use of Exparel has been widely criticized over the past few years with regard to its efficacy compared to perineural catheters and whether or not it truly lasts 72 hours, as is often advertised. However, it is still used in many centers for the proposed increased duration of action and ease of use compared to indwelling catheters, which require a greater degree of monitoring and follow-up for removal. Various studies conducted have looked at the efficacy of Exparel and have found no superiority over nerve blocks with other local anesthetic agents. However, nerve blocks with catheters have never been directly compared to exparel injections for pain control. As such, the goal of this study is to elucidate whether there truly is a difference between the two. In this study, the study team will compare preoperative adductor and sciatic nerve blocks with exparel versus catheters in orthopedic surgery patients who present with a traumatic lower extremity injury. Exparel has been documented to increase the duration of a nerve block by up to 72 hours. Studies comparing exparel single shot versus bupivacaine single shot have favored for the latter, which pharmacodynamically makes sense. A liposomal compound which slowly denatures to present an active component would seemingly be unlikely to match up against the higher concentration of said active component flood the desired site of action. In our study, the study team plans to measure the duration of the block with the addition of exparel in comparison to the duration of the block with a catheter which is connected to a pump continuously infusing a set rate of local anesthetics. Our primary research question is whether there is a statistically significant difference in pain control for 72 hours post-op in lower extremity orthopedic trauma when using Exparel versus a short-acting local anesthetic supplied via continuous infusion, in this case ropivacaine.