• Xu-Feng Jia, Yong Ji, Guang-Ping Huang, Yu Zhou, and Miao Long.
• Orthopedics Department, Jianyang People's Hospital, Sichuan, 641400, PR China.
• Int J Surg. 2017 Apr 1; 40: 97-108.

ObjectiveWe performed a meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficiency and safety between local infiltration analgesia and intrathecal morphine for pain control in total knee and hip arthroplasty.MethodsWe systemically searched electronic databases including Embase (1980-2016.7), Medline (1966-2016.7), PubMed (1966-2016.7), ScienceDirect (1985-2016.7), web of science (1950-2016.7) and Cochrane Library for relevant articles. All calculation was carried out by Stata 11.0.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 242 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences in terms of postoperative pain scores at 24 h during rest (P = 0.008) and mobilization (P = 0.049) following total knee and hip arthroplasty. Significant difference was found regarding the incidence of nausea (P = 0.030), vomiting (P = 0.005), and pruritus (P = 0.000) between two groups. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of morphine equivalent consumption at postoperative 24 or 48 h.ConclusionsLocal infiltration analgesia (LIA) provided superior analgesic effects within the first 24 h compared to intrathecal morphine (ITM) following total knee and hip arthroplasty. There were fewer adverse effects in LIA. Doses of morphine consumption were similar in the two groups.Copyright © 2017 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

32 keywords...

hide…