DeLong Lauren, Krishna Senthil, Roth Catherine, Veneziano Giorgio, Arce Villalobos Mauricio, Klingele Kevin, Tobias Joseph D
Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine - Athens Campus (Athens, Ohio) and Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA.
Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA.
Local Reg Anesth. 2021 Oct 19;14:139-144. doi: 10.2147/LRA.S334561. eCollection 2021.
For surgical procedures involving the hip and femur, various regional anesthetic techniques may be used to provide analgesia. Although there has been an increase in the use of lumbar plexus block (LPB), the technique may be time consuming and associated with complications. Suprainguinal fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) is a potentially easier and safer alternative. The current study prospectively compares LPB with suprainguinal FICB.
This prospective, double-blinded, randomized, study included patients undergoing elective orthopedic procedures of the hip and/or femur. All study patients received general anesthesia with randomization to either an LPB or suprainguinal FICB using 0.5% ropivacaine with epinephrine and dexamethasone. Postoperative pain control was achieved with intravenous hydromorphone delivered by patient-controlled analgesia with scheduled acetaminophen and ketorolac. Outcome data included time to perform the block, perioperative opioid consumption, postoperative pain scores (VAS) and hospital length of stay.
The study cohort included 15 patients between the ages of 7 and 16 years (LPB N = 7, FICB N = 8). The median block time was 6 minutes (IQR: 4.11) for the LPB group and 3 minutes (IQR: 3.6) for the FICB group (p = 0.107). Median postoperative pain scores were 4 (IQR: 0.6) for the LPB group and 2 (IQR: 0.5) for the FICB group (p = 0.032). There were no differences in the intraoperative or postoperative opioid and NSAID use between the two groups.
The suprainguinal FICB provides analgesia that is at least as effective as a LPB following hip and femur surgery. Time to perform the block was shorter with the FICB due to the supine patient position and limited needle trajectory. Although we noted no adverse effects, the superficial needle trajectory of the FICB offers a less invasive approach and the potential for decreased risks of adverse effects.
对于涉及髋部和股骨的外科手术,可采用多种区域麻醉技术来提供镇痛。尽管腰丛阻滞(LPB)的使用有所增加,但该技术可能耗时且伴有并发症。腹股沟上髂筋膜间隙阻滞(FICB)是一种潜在更简便、更安全的替代方法。本研究前瞻性地比较了LPB与腹股沟上FICB。
这项前瞻性、双盲、随机研究纳入了接受髋部和/或股骨择期骨科手术的患者。所有研究患者均接受全身麻醉,并随机分为接受使用含肾上腺素和地塞米松的0.5%罗哌卡因进行LPB或腹股沟上FICB。术后疼痛控制通过患者自控镇痛联合静脉注射氢吗啡酮以及定期使用对乙酰氨基酚和酮咯酸来实现。结果数据包括实施阻滞的时间、围手术期阿片类药物消耗量、术后疼痛评分(视觉模拟评分法[VAS])以及住院时间。
研究队列包括15名年龄在7至16岁之间的患者(LPB组7例,FICB组8例)。LPB组的中位阻滞时间为6分钟(四分位间距[IQR]:4.11),FICB组为3分钟(IQR:3.6)(p = 0.107)。LPB组术后疼痛评分中位数为4(IQR:0.6),FICB组为2(IQR:0.5)(p = 0.032)。两组在术中和术后阿片类药物及非甾体抗炎药的使用方面无差异。
腹股沟上FICB在髋部和股骨手术后提供的镇痛效果至少与LPB一样有效。由于患者仰卧位以及穿刺针路径有限,FICB实施阻滞的时间更短。尽管我们未观察到不良反应,但FICB的表浅穿刺针路径提供了一种侵入性较小的方法,且有降低不良反应风险的可能性。