Department of Anaesthesia, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anesthesiology. 2013 Feb;118(2):409-15. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318279fa0b.
BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that the adductor canal block (ACB), a predominant sensory blockade, reduces quadriceps strength compared with placebo (primary endpoint, area under the curve, 0.5-6 h), but less than the femoral nerve block (FNB; secondary endpoint). Other secondary endpoints were adductor strength and ability to ambulate. METHODS: The authors enrolled healthy young men into this double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover study. On two separate study days, subjects received either ACB or FNB with ropivacaine, and placebo in the opposite limb. Strength was assessed as maximum voluntary isometric contraction for quadriceps and adductor muscles. In addition, subjects performed three standardized ambulation tests. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01449097. RESULTS: Twelve subjects were randomized, 11 analyzed. Quadriceps strength (area under the curve, 0.5-6 h) was significantly reduced when comparing ACB with placebo (5.0 ± 1.0 vs. 5.9 ± 0.6, P = 0.02, CI: -1.5 to -0.2), FNB with placebo (P = 0.0004), and when comparing FNB with ACB (P = 0.002). The mean reduction from baseline was 8% with ACB and 49% with FNB. The only statistically significant difference in adductor strength was between placebo and FNB (P = 0.007). Performance in all mobilization tests was reduced after an FNB compared with an ACB (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with placebo ACB statistically significantly reduced quadriceps strength, but the reduction was only 8% from baseline. ACB preserved quadriceps strength and ability to ambulate better than FNB did. Future studies are needed to compare the analgesic effect of the ACB with the FNB in a clinical setting.
背景:作者假设,与安慰剂相比,收肌管阻滞(ACB),一种主要的感觉阻滞,会降低股四头肌力量(主要终点,0.5-6 小时的曲线下面积),但不如股神经阻滞(FNB)(次要终点)。其他次要终点是内收肌力量和步行能力。 方法:作者将健康的年轻男性纳入这项双盲、安慰剂对照、随机、交叉研究。在两个单独的研究日,受试者分别接受 ACB 或 FNB 加罗哌卡因,以及对侧肢体的安慰剂。力量评估为股四头肌和内收肌的最大自主等长收缩。此外,受试者还进行了三项标准化步行测试。Clinicaltrials.gov 标识符:NCT01449097。 结果:12 名受试者被随机分配,11 名受试者进行了分析。与安慰剂相比,股四头肌力量(0.5-6 小时的曲线下面积)在 ACB 时明显降低(5.0 ± 1.0 与 5.9 ± 0.6,P = 0.02,CI:-1.5 至-0.2),与 FNB 相比时也是如此(P = 0.0004),与 FNB 相比时也是如此(P = 0.002)。ACB 组的平均基线下降幅度为 8%,FNB 组为 49%。在最大内收肌力量方面,唯一具有统计学意义的差异是安慰剂与 FNB 之间(P = 0.007)。与 ACB 相比,FNB 后所有移动测试的表现均降低(P < 0.05)。 结论:与安慰剂相比,ACB 统计学上显著降低了股四头肌力量,但仅从基线下降了 8%。ACB 保持股四头肌力量和步行能力优于 FNB。未来的研究需要比较 ACB 与 FNB 在临床环境中的镇痛效果。
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016-8
Arthroplast Today. 2025-1-25
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024-10-2