Girombelli Alessandro, Vetrone Francesco, Saglietti Francesco, Galimberti Andrea, Fusaro Andrea, Umbrello Michele, Pezzi Angelo
Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, EOC, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland.
Department of Surgery and Emergency, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, ASST Nord Milano, Bassini Hospital, Cinisello Balsamo (MI), Italy.
Saudi J Anaesth. 2024 Apr-Jun;18(2):218-223. doi: 10.4103/sja.sja_881_23. Epub 2024 Mar 14.
Optimal pain control with limited muscle weakness is paramount for a swift initiation of physical therapy and early discharge. Fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) has been recommended since it offers good pain control with a low risk of motor block. Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with lateral femoral cutaneous block (LFCN) has been proposed as an effective alternative to FICB that offers better pain control with a considerably lower risk of motor block. We aimed to compare the aforementioned blocks and determine which one yielded the lowest numeric rating scale (NRS) score.
We designed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty. The primary outcome was the NRS score at 6, 12, and 24 hours. The secondary outcomes were total opioid consumption, time to first PRN opioid, and time to first postoperative ambulation.
52 patients were recruited, (13 PENG plus LFCN, 39 FICB). PENG plus LCFN resulted in a lower NRS at all three-time points (mean difference and 95%CI at 6 h 0.378 [-0.483; 1.240], at 12 h 0.336 [-0.378; 1.050], and at 24 h 0.464 [0.013; 0.914] = 0.02). Moreover, less PRN opioids were requested in the PENG plus LCFN vs. FICB group (0 [0;7.5] vs 60 [15;80] milligrams of morphine equivalents, = 0.001). No delay in the first ambulation or initiation of physical rehabilitation was reported in either group.
PENG plus LCFN seems to offer better pain control and lead to less PRN opioids. Neither block hindered physical therapy nor ambulation. These results need to be confirmed with a larger prospective and randomized study.
在肌肉无力有限的情况下实现最佳疼痛控制对于迅速开始物理治疗和早期出院至关重要。髂筋膜间隙阻滞(FICB)因其能提供良好的疼痛控制且运动阻滞风险低而被推荐。有人提出联合股外侧皮神经阻滞(LFCN)的关节周围神经组(PENG)阻滞是FICB的有效替代方法,它能提供更好的疼痛控制且运动阻滞风险显著更低。我们旨在比较上述两种阻滞方法,并确定哪种方法产生的数字评分量表(NRS)得分最低。
我们对接受择期全髋关节置换术的患者进行了回顾性分析。主要结局是6小时、12小时和24小时时的NRS得分。次要结局包括总阿片类药物消耗量、首次按需使用阿片类药物的时间以及首次术后下床活动的时间。
共招募了52例患者(13例接受PENG联合LFCN阻滞,39例接受FICB阻滞)。PENG联合LCFN阻滞在所有三个时间点的NRS得分均较低(6小时时的平均差值和95%可信区间为0.378[-0.483;1.240],12小时时为0.336[-0.378;1.050],24小时时为0.464[0.013;0.914],P = 0.02)。此外,与FICB组相比,PENG联合LCFN组按需使用的阿片类药物更少(吗啡当量为0[0;7.5]毫克与60[15;80]毫克,P = 0.001)。两组均未报告首次下床活动或开始物理康复的延迟情况。
PENG联合LCFN阻滞似乎能提供更好的疼痛控制,并减少按需使用的阿片类药物。两种阻滞方法均未妨碍物理治疗或下床活动。这些结果需要通过更大规模的前瞻性随机研究来证实。