Department of Anaesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care, Changi General Hospital, Singapore.
Department of Rehabilitative Services, Changi General Hospital, Singapore.
Singapore Med J. 2019 Mar;60(3):145-149. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2018082. Epub 2018 Jul 16.
Adductor canal block (ACB) is hypothesised to provide superior analgesia to femoral nerve block (FNB) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) while preserving quadriceps strength.
30 patients undergoing TKA were randomised to receive either ACB or FNB. Baseline tests of quadriceps strength were performed. Ultrasound-guided blocks with 30 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine were administered before induction of general anaesthesia. Patient-controlled analgesia (morphine) was prescribed for postoperative analgesia. The primary outcome of this prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial was morphine consumption (mean ± standard deviation) in the first 24 hours. Secondary outcomes were pain scores using a numeric rating scale (median and interquartile range [IQR]), quadriceps strength (% of baseline) and functional outcomes at 24 hours and 48 hours postoperatively.
There was no statistically significant difference in morphine consumption at 24 hours between the ACB and FNB groups (21 ± 11 mg vs. 20 ± 12 mg; p = 0.85). No statistically significant differences were observed between the ACB and FNB groups in pain scores at 24 hours (at rest: 0 [IQR 0-2] vs. 0 [IQR 0-2]; on movement: 5 [IQR 4-8] vs. 5 [IQR 3-8]) and quadriceps strength (24 hours: 28.8% ± 26.1% vs. 26.8% ± 19.6% of baseline; 48 hours: 31.5 ± 23.1% vs. 33.7% ± 20.1% of baseline). There were also no statistically significant differences in functional outcomes and length of stay.
We found no statistically significant differences in analgesic effects, quadriceps strength or functional recovery postoperatively between ACB and FNB.
股神经阻滞(FNB)被认为能为全膝关节置换术(TKA)提供比隐神经阻滞(ACB)更优的镇痛效果,同时保持股四头肌力量。
30 例行 TKA 的患者被随机分为接受 ACB 或 FNB 治疗。在全身麻醉诱导前进行股四头肌力量的基线测试。在超声引导下,使用 0.5%罗哌卡因 30ml 进行阻滞。术后使用患者自控镇痛(吗啡)进行镇痛。本前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验的主要结局是 24 小时内吗啡的消耗量(平均值±标准差)。次要结局是使用数字评分量表(中位数和四分位数范围[IQR])评估的疼痛评分、股四头肌力量(与基线的百分比)以及术后 24 小时和 48 小时的功能结局。
在 24 小时时,ACB 组和 FNB 组的吗啡消耗量无统计学差异(21±11mg 与 20±12mg;p=0.85)。在 24 小时时,ACB 组和 FNB 组的疼痛评分(静息时:0[IQR 0-2]与 0[IQR 0-2];活动时:5[IQR 4-8]与 5[IQR 3-8])和股四头肌力量(24 小时:28.8%±26.1%与 26.8%±19.6%的基线;48 小时:31.5%±23.1%与 33.7%±20.1%的基线)无统计学差异。在功能结局和住院时间方面也无统计学差异。
我们发现 ACB 与 FNB 相比,在术后的镇痛效果、股四头肌力量或功能恢复方面无统计学差异。