Cited by 167Anesthesia and Pain ManagementTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesPain Management and Opioid Use

Predictors for moderate to severe acute postoperative pain after total hip and knee replacement

Open access
Liu, Spencer S., Buvanendran, Asokumar, Rathmell, James P., Sawhney, Mona, Bae, James J., Moric, Mario, Perros, Stephen, Pope, Ashley J. +9 more·2012·International Orthopaedics

Abstract

Purpose The ability to identify and focus care to patients at higher risk of moderate to severe postoperative pain should improve analgesia and patient satisfaction, and may affect reimbursement. We undertook this multi-centre cross-sectional study to identify preoperative risk factors for moderate to severe pain after total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacement. Methods A total of 897 patients were identified from electronic medical records. Preoperative information and anaesthetic technique was gained by retrospective chart review. The primary outcomes were moderate to severe pain (pain score ≥ 4/10) at rest and with activity on postoperative day one. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors for moderate to severe pain. Results Moderate to severe pain was reported by 20 % at rest and 33 % with activity. Predictors for pain at rest were female gender (OR 1.10 with 95 % CI 1.01-1.20), younger age (0.96, 0.94-0.99), increased BMI (1.02, 1.01-1.03), TKR vs. THR (3.21, 2.73-3.78), increased severity of preoperative pain at the surgical site (1.15, 1.03-1.30), preoperative use of opioids (1.63, 1.32-2.01), and general anaesthesia (8.51, 2.13-33.98). Predictors for pain with activity were TKR vs. THR (1.42, 1.28-1.57), increased severity of preoperative pain at the surgical site (1.11, 1.04-1.19), general anaesthesia (9.02, 3.68-22.07), preoperative use of anti-convulsants (1.78, 1.32-2.40) and anti-depressants (1.50, 1.08-2.80), and prior surgery at the surgical site (1.28, 1.05-1.57). Conclusions Our findings provide clinical guidance for preoperative stratification of patients for more intensive management potentially including education, nursing staffing, and referral to specialised pain management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00264-012-1623-5

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, S. S., Buvanendran, A., Rathmell, J. P., Sawhney, M., Bae, J. J., Moric, M., Perros, S., Pope, A. J., Poultsides, L., Valle, C. J. D., Shin, N. S., McCartney, C. J. L., Ma, Y., Shah, M., Wood, M. J., Manion, S. C., & Sculco, T. P.
Affiliations
  • Hospital for Special Surgery (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Liu, Spencer S.
Venue
International Orthopaedics
Published
2012-07-29
Volume
36
Issue
11
Pages
2261-2267
ISSN
  • 0341-2695 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-5195
OpenAlex
W1979180225
Cited by
167
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Orthopaedics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Hospital for Special Surgery
  • National Institutes of Health (RR024996)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024996)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
postoperative pain, total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, preoperative risk factors, general anesthesia, opioid use, antiepileptic drugs, body mass index, preoperative pain, patient stratification, analgesia
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Hip Joint, Humans, Knee Joint, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Pain, Postoperative, Postoperative Pain, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Triage, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Patient Selection, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review