全膝关节置换术后连续收肌管阻滞与连续股神经阻滞对活动能力及疼痛治疗的效果:一项随机双盲临床试验
Continuous adductor canal block versus continuous femoral nerve block after total knee arthroplasty for mobilisation capability and pain treatment: a randomised and blinded clinical trial.
作者信息
Wiesmann Thomas, Piechowiak Karolin, Duderstadt Sonja, Haupt Daniela, Schmitt Jan, Eschbach Daphne, Feldmann Carsten, Wulf Hinnerk, Zoremba Martin, Steinfeldt Thorsten
机构信息
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital, Philipps University, Marburg, Baldingerstrasse, 35033, Marburg, Germany.
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
出版信息
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 Mar;136(3):397-406. doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2403-7. Epub 2016 Jan 11.
INTRODUCTION
Continuous femoral nerve blocks for total knee arthroplasty can cause motor weakness of the quadriceps muscle and thus prevent early mobilisation. Perioperative falls may result as an iatrogenic complication. In this randomised and blinded trial, we tested the hypothesis that a continuous adductor canal block is superior to continuous femoral nerve block regarding mobilisation ('timed up-and-go' test and other tests) after total knee arthroplasty under general anaesthesia.
METHODS
In our study, we included patients scheduled for unilateral knee arthroplasty under general anaesthesia into a blinded and randomised trial. Patients were allocated to a continuous adductor canal block (CACB) or a continuous femoral nerve block (CFNB) for three postoperative days (POD 1-3); with a bolus of 15 ml ropivacaine 0.375%, followed by continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% and patient-controlled bolus administration. Both groups received an additional continuous sciatic nerve block as well as a multimodal systemic analgesic treatment. The primary outcome parameter was mobilisation capability, assessed by 'timed up-and-go' (TUG) test. Analgesic quality, need for opioid rescue and local anaesthetic consumption were also assessed.
RESULTS
Forty-two patients were included and analysed (21 patients per group). No significant difference was noted in respect to mobilisation at POD 3 (TUG [s]: CACB 45, CFNB 51). It is worth saying that pain scores (numeric rating scale, NRS) were similar in both groups at POD 3 {rest [median (interquartile range)]: CACB 0 (0-3), CFNB 1 (0-3); stress: CACB 4 (2-5), CFNB 3 (2-4)}.
CONCLUSIONS
Concerning the mobilisation capability, we did not actually observe a superior effect of CACB compared with CFNB technique in our patients following total knee arthroplasty. Moreover, no difference was observed concerning analgesia quality.
引言
全膝关节置换术中持续股神经阻滞可导致股四头肌运动无力,从而妨碍早期活动。围手术期跌倒可能是一种医源性并发症。在这项随机双盲试验中,我们检验了以下假设:在全身麻醉下进行全膝关节置换术后,持续收肌管阻滞在活动能力方面(“起立行走”试验及其他测试)优于持续股神经阻滞。
方法
在我们的研究中,将计划在全身麻醉下进行单侧膝关节置换术的患者纳入一项双盲随机试验。患者被分配接受术后三天(术后第1 - 3天)的持续收肌管阻滞(CACB)或持续股神经阻滞(CFNB);给予15 ml 0.375%的罗哌卡因推注,随后持续输注0.2%的罗哌卡因并采用患者自控推注给药。两组均额外接受持续坐骨神经阻滞以及多模式全身镇痛治疗。主要结局参数为活动能力,通过“起立行走”(TUG)试验进行评估。还评估了镇痛质量、阿片类药物解救需求及局部麻醉药消耗量。
结果
纳入并分析了42例患者(每组21例)。术后第3天在活动能力方面未观察到显著差异(TUG [秒]:CACB组45,CFNB组51)。值得一提的是,两组在术后第3天的疼痛评分(数字评定量表,NRS)相似{静息时[中位数(四分位间距)]:CACB组0(0 - 3),CFNB组1(0 - 3);应激时:CACB组4(2 - 5),CFNB组3(2 - 4)}。
结论
关于活动能力,在我们的全膝关节置换术后患者中,与CFNB技术相比,我们实际上并未观察到CACB有更优效果。此外,在镇痛质量方面未观察到差异。