Suppr超能文献

全膝关节置换术后内收肌管阻滞与股神经阻滞在镇痛效果、早期康复效果及早期膝关节外侧疼痛缓解方面的比较。

A comparison of adductor canal block and femoral nerve block after total-knee arthroplasty regarding analgesic effect, effectiveness of early rehabilitation, and lateral knee pain relief in the early stage.

作者信息

Tan Zhen, Kang Pengde, Pei FuXing, Shen Bin, Zhou ZongKe, Yang Jing

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery.

Department of Anesthesiology, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.

出版信息

Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov;97(48):e13391. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013391.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic effect on the lateral and overall knee and early rehabilitation between adductor canal block (ACB) and femoral nerve block (FNB) after total-knee arthroplasty.

METHOD

Two hundred patients randomly participated in the study and were divided into the ACB group and FNB group in a randomized manner. All patients received standardized anesthesia and analgesia upon hospitalization. Outcome evaluations included visual analog scale (VAS) scores at rest and during activity, quadriceps strength, range of motion (ROM), total opioid consumption and complication occurrence, sleep interruptions caused by pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative length of stay (PLOS) before discharge in all groups. In the 90-day postoperative follow-up, we also observed the acute deep periprosthetic joint infection, wound breakdown, readmission, reoperations, inpatient falls, ROM, and patient satisfaction score.

RESULTS

The lateral knee VAS scores are lower in the FNB group at rest and during activity (2-24 hours postoperatively) compared with those in the ACB group. However, the overall knee VAS score, total opioid consumption and complication occurrence, sleep interruptions caused by pain, and PONV are similar between the FNB and ACB groups. When evaluating early rehabilitation, the quadriceps strength in the ACB group is superior to that in the FNB group 24 hours postoperatively. At 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively, ROM in the ACB group is significantly better than that in the FNB group. Furthermore, the ACB group has a shorter PLOS (4.5 ± 0.60 days) than the FNB group (5.3 ± 0.7 days). However, patient satisfaction score, readmission rate, inpatient falls, acute deep periprosthetic joint infection, and wound breakdown are not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The ACB does not relieve lateral knee pain in the early stage but provides similar analgesic effect and better effectiveness of early rehabilitation compared with FNB in patients undergoing TKA.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较全膝关节置换术后内收肌管阻滞(ACB)与股神经阻滞(FNB)对膝关节外侧及整体的镇痛效果以及早期康复情况。

方法

200例患者随机参与本研究,并随机分为ACB组和FNB组。所有患者住院后均接受标准化麻醉和镇痛。结局评估包括静息及活动时的视觉模拟评分(VAS)、股四头肌力量、活动范围(ROM)、总阿片类药物消耗量、并发症发生率、疼痛导致的睡眠中断、术后恶心呕吐(PONV)以及所有组出院前的术后住院时间(PLOS)。在术后90天随访中,我们还观察了急性深部假体周围关节感染、伤口裂开、再入院、再次手术、住院患者跌倒、ROM以及患者满意度评分。

结果

与ACB组相比,FNB组在静息及活动时(术后2 - 24小时)膝关节外侧VAS评分更低。然而,FNB组与ACB组在膝关节整体VAS评分、总阿片类药物消耗量、并发症发生率、疼痛导致的睡眠中断以及PONV方面相似。在评估早期康复时,术后24小时ACB组的股四头肌力量优于FNB组。术后24、48和72小时,ACB组的ROM明显优于FNB组。此外,ACB组的PLOS(4.5±0.60天)比FNB组(5.3±0.7天)短。然而,两组之间的患者满意度评分、再入院率、住院患者跌倒、急性深部假体周围关节感染和伤口裂开在统计学上无显著差异。

结论

ACB在早期不能缓解膝关节外侧疼痛,但与接受全膝关节置换术的患者的FNB相比,其镇痛效果相似且早期康复效果更好。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/89cd/6283224/5cb8d776005d/medi-97-e13391-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验