From the Department of Anesthesiology, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York (D.H.K., Y.L., E.A.G., R.L.K., D.B.M., A.K.G., and J.T.Y.); Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (A.M.); Department of Anesthesiology, Weill-Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York (M.L.P.); and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Core, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York (Y.-y.L. and Y.M.).
Anesthesiology. 2014 Mar;120(3):540-50. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000119.
This prospective double-blinded, randomized controlled trial compared adductor canal block (ACB) with femoral nerve block (FNB) in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. The authors hypothesized that ACB, compared with FNB, would exhibit less quadriceps weakness and demonstrate noninferior pain score and opioid consumption at 6 to 8 h postanesthesia.
Patients received an ACB or FNB as a component of a multimodal analgesic. Quadriceps strength, pain score, and opioid consumption were assessed on both legs preoperatively and at 6 to 8, 24, and 48 h postanesthesia administration. In a joint hypothesis test, noninferiority was first evaluated on the primary outcomes of strength, pain score, and opioid consumption at 6 to 8 h; superiority on each outcome at 6 to 8 h was then assessed only if noninferiority was established.
Forty-six patients received ACB; 47 patients received FNB. At 6 to 8 h postanesthesia, ACB patients had significantly higher median dynamometer readings versus FNB patients (median [interquartile range], 6.1 kgf [3.5, 10.9] (ACB) vs. 0 kgf [0.0, 3.9] (FNB); P < 0.0001), but was not inferior to FNB with regard to Numeric Rating Scale pain scores (1.0 [0.0, 3.5] ACB vs. 0.0 [0.0, 1.0] FNB; P = 0.019), or to opioid consumption (32.2 [22.4, 47.5] ACB vs. 26.6 [19.6, 49.0]; P = 0.0115). At 24 and 48 h postanesthesia, there was no significant statistical difference in dynamometer results, pain scores, or opioid use between the two groups.
At 6 to 8 h postanesthesia, the ACB, compared with the FNB, exhibited early relative sparing of quadriceps strength and was not inferior in both providing analgesia or opioid intake.
本前瞻性双盲、随机对照试验比较了股神经阻滞(FNB)与隐神经阻滞(ACB)在全膝关节置换患者中的应用。作者假设与 FNB 相比,ACB 在麻醉后 6 至 8 小时会表现出较弱的股四头肌无力,且疼痛评分和阿片类药物消耗无差异。
患者接受 ACB 或 FNB 作为多模式镇痛的一部分。在术前和麻醉后 6 至 8 小时、24 小时和 48 小时评估双侧股四头肌力量、疼痛评分和阿片类药物消耗。在联合假设检验中,首先对主要结局(6 至 8 小时的力量、疼痛评分和阿片类药物消耗)进行非劣效性评估;如果确定了非劣效性,则仅对 6 至 8 小时的每个结果进行优效性评估。
46 例患者接受 ACB,47 例患者接受 FNB。麻醉后 6 至 8 小时,ACB 患者的握力计读数明显高于 FNB 患者(中位数[四分位数范围]:6.1kgf[3.5-10.9](ACB)与 0kgf[0.0-3.9](FNB);P<0.0001),但在数字评分量表疼痛评分(1.0[0.0-3.5]ACB 与 0.0[0.0-1.0]FNB;P=0.019)或阿片类药物消耗(32.2[22.4-47.5]ACB 与 26.6[19.6-49.0];P=0.0115)方面,并不劣于 FNB。在麻醉后 24 小时和 48 小时,两组之间握力计结果、疼痛评分或阿片类药物使用无统计学差异。
在麻醉后 6 至 8 小时,ACB 与 FNB 相比,早期股四头肌力量相对保留,在提供镇痛或阿片类药物摄入方面并不劣于 FNB。