Joe Han Bum, Choo Ho Sik, Yoon Ji Sang, Oh Sang Eon, Cho Jae Ho, Park Young Uk
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Dec;95(52):e5758. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005758.
A femoral nerve block (FNB) in combination with a sciatic nerve block (SNB) is commonly used for anesthesia and analgesia in patients undergoing hindfoot and ankle surgery. The effects of FNB on motor function, related fall risk, and rehabilitation are controversial. An adductor canal block (ACB) potentially spares motor fibers in the femoral nerve, but the comparative effect on hindfoot and ankle surgeries between the 2 approaches is not yet well defined. We hypothesized that compared to FNB, ACB would cause less weakness in the quadriceps and produce similar pain scores during and after the operation.
Sixty patients scheduled for hindfoot and ankle surgeries (arthroscopy, Achilles tendon surgery, or medial ankle surgery) were stratified randomized for each surgery to receive an FNB (FNB group) or an ACB (ACB group) combined with an SNB. The primary outcome was the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at each stage. Secondary outcomes included quadriceps strength, time profiles (duration of the block procedure, time to full anesthesia and time to full recovery), patients' analgesic requirements, satisfaction, and complications related to peripheral nerve blocks such as falls, neurologic symptoms, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity were evaluated. The primary outcome was tested for the noninferiority of ACB to FNB, and the other outcomes were tested for the superiority of each variable between the groups.
A total of 31 patients received an ACB and 29 received an FNB. The VAS pain scores of the ACB group were not inferior during and after the operation compared to those of the FNB group. At 30 minutes and 2 hours after anesthesia, patients who received an ACB had significantly higher average dynamometer readings than those who received a FNB (34.2 ± 20.4 and 30.4 ± 23.7 vs 1.7 ± 3.7 and 2.3 ± 7.4, respectively), and the results were similar at 24 and 48 hours after anesthesia. There were no differences between the 2 groups with regard to time profiles and patient satisfaction. No complications were noted.
ACB preserved quadriceps muscle strength better than FNB, without a significant difference in postoperative pain. Therefore, ACB may be a good alternative to FNB for reducing the potential fall risk.
股神经阻滞(FNB)联合坐骨神经阻滞(SNB)常用于后足和踝关节手术患者的麻醉和镇痛。FNB对运动功能、相关跌倒风险及康复的影响存在争议。收肌管阻滞(ACB)可能会保留股神经中的运动纤维,但两种方法在后足和踝关节手术中的比较效果尚未明确。我们假设,与FNB相比,ACB导致的股四头肌无力较轻,且在手术期间及术后产生相似的疼痛评分。
60例计划行后足和踝关节手术(关节镜检查、跟腱手术或内踝手术)的患者,每种手术均分层随机分组,分别接受FNB(FNB组)或ACB(ACB组)联合SNB。主要结局指标为各阶段的视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分。次要结局指标包括股四头肌力量、时间参数(阻滞操作持续时间、完全麻醉时间和完全恢复时间)、患者镇痛需求、满意度以及与周围神经阻滞相关的并发症,如跌倒、神经症状和局部麻醉药全身毒性。对ACB相对于FNB的非劣效性进行主要结局指标检验,对两组间各变量的优越性进行其他结局指标检验。
共31例患者接受ACB,29例接受FNB。ACB组在手术期间及术后的VAS疼痛评分不低于FNB组。麻醉后30分钟和2小时,接受ACB的患者平均测力计读数显著高于接受FNB的患者(分别为34.2±20.4和30.4±23.7,对比1.7±3.7和2.3±7.4),麻醉后24小时和48小时结果相似。两组在时间参数和患者满意度方面无差异。未观察到并发症。
ACB比FNB能更好地保留股四头肌力量,术后疼痛无显著差异。因此,ACB可能是降低潜在跌倒风险的FNB的良好替代方法。