Canbek Umut, Akgun Ulas, Aydogan Nevres Hurriyet, Kilinc Cem Yalin, Uysal Ali Ihsan
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey.
Department of Anesthesiology, Mugla Sitki Kocman University Training and Research Hospital, Mugla, Turkey.
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019 Sep;53(5):334-339. doi: 10.1016/j.aott.2019.04.001. Epub 2019 May 2.
The aim of this study was to compare single-shot adductor canal block and continuous infusion adductor canal block techniques in total knee arthroplasty patients.
We prospectively randomized 123 patients who were scheduled for unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty surgery into single shot (n = 60; mean age: 67.1 ± 6.9 years) and continuous (n = 63; mean age: 66.9 ± 6.8 years) adductor canal block groups. Postoperative visual analog scale pain scores, need for additional opioids and functional results as; timed up and go test, the 30-s chair stand test, 5 times sit-to-stand test, the 6-min walking test, the time to active straight leg raise, time to walking upstairs, maximal flexion at the time of discharge, duration of stay in hospital were compared between the two groups.
Pain scores were lower in the continuous adductor canal block group as compared to the single-shot adductor canal block group throughout the postoperative period (p = 0.001). Rescue analgesia was required for 6 (10%) patients in the single shot group and for 1 (1.59%) patient in the continuous group (p = 0.044). Patients in the continuous adductor canal block group displayed better functional results than the single-shot adductor canal block group with respect to active straight-leg rise time (25.52 ± 4.56 h vs 30.47 ± 8.07 h, p = 0.001), 6-min walking test (74.52 ± 29.38 m vs 62.18 ± 33.32 m, p = 0.035) and maximal knee flexion degree at discharge (104.92 ± 5.35° vs 98.5 ± 7.55°, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups for other functional and ambulation scores.
Pain control following total knee arthroplasty was found to be better in those patients treated with continuous adductor canal block as compared to those treated with single-shot adductor canal block. Patients treated with continuous adductor canal block also displayed better ambulation and functional recovery following total knee arthroplasty.
Level I, Therapeutic Study.
本研究旨在比较全膝关节置换术患者单次股内收肌管阻滞与持续输注股内收肌管阻滞技术。
我们将123例计划行单侧初次全膝关节置换手术的患者前瞻性随机分为单次阻滞组(n = 60;平均年龄:67.1±6.9岁)和持续输注组(n = 63;平均年龄:66.9±6.8岁)。比较两组术后视觉模拟评分法疼痛评分、额外使用阿片类药物的需求以及功能结果,如计时起立行走测试、30秒椅子站立测试、5次坐立测试、6分钟步行测试、主动直腿抬高时间、上楼时间、出院时最大屈曲度、住院时间。
在整个术后期间,持续输注股内收肌管阻滞组的疼痛评分低于单次股内收肌管阻滞组(p = 0.001)。单次阻滞组有6例(10%)患者需要补救镇痛,持续输注组有1例(1.59%)患者需要补救镇痛(p = 0.044)。在主动直腿抬高时间(25.52±4.56小时 vs 30.47±8.07小时,p = 0.001)、6分钟步行测试(74.52±29.38米 vs 62.18±33.32米,p = 0.035)和出院时最大膝关节屈曲度(104.92±5.35° vs 98.5±7.55°,p = 0.001)方面,持续输注股内收肌管阻滞组患者的功能结果优于单次股内收肌管阻滞组。两组在其他功能和步行评分方面无显著差异。
与单次股内收肌管阻滞治疗的患者相比,持续输注股内收肌管阻滞治疗的全膝关节置换术后患者的疼痛控制更好。持续输注股内收肌管阻滞治疗的患者在全膝关节置换术后的步行和功能恢复也更好。
I级,治疗性研究。