Coffman John C, Jones Justin, Hussain Nasir, Abdel-Rasoul Mahmoud, Dienhart Peter W, Nasser Samiha M, Hamilton Charles L, Lipps Jonathan A, Kushelev Michael
Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, The Metrohealth System, Cleveland, OH, USA.
J Pain Res. 2024 Sep 28;17:3157-3166. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S466694. eCollection 2024.
Hip arthroscopy is commonly performed as an outpatient procedure and effective postoperative pain management is important to provide quality patient care and enable timely discharge. Multiple regional nerve blocks have been described for pain relief after hip arthroscopy, but there is no consensus on the optimal technique. This retrospective investigation aimed to compare quadratus lumborum (QL) and pericapsular nerve group (PENG) blocks to determine if there are differences in analgesic outcomes after outpatient hip arthroscopy.
A total of 50 consecutive patients that received QL block and 50 that received PENG block for outpatient hip arthroscopy were identified and compared to determine if there were any differences in the primary outcome of total perioperative opioid consumption prior to discharge from the surgery center. Important secondary analgesic outcomes include postoperative opioid consumption, verbal rating scale (VRS) pain scores or total time in the recovery area. Summary statistics of relevant variables are compared and reported between study groups (QL versus PENG).
For QL and PENG groups, no significant differences were observed in total perioperative oral morphine equivalents (OME) (69.5 vs 60mg; p=0.40), postoperative OME (15 vs 15.3mg; p=0.96) or maximum pain scores in the recovery area (7.0 vs 6.0; p=0.41). Postoperatively, QL block patients were in PACU for a greater length of time after surgery than PENG block patients (89.5 vs 72 minutes; p<0.001). No patients had uncontrolled pain requiring emergency room visits or hospital admission within 24 hours. No neurologic complications or instances of motor weakness were reported after QL or PENG blocks.
This retrospective study observed similar opioid requirements and pain scores for patients receiving QL versus PENG block for hip arthroscopy, though PENG block patients had shorter times in the recovery area. Prospective, controlled trials are required to further explore and confirm these findings.
髋关节镜检查通常作为门诊手术进行,有效的术后疼痛管理对于提供优质的患者护理和实现及时出院至关重要。已有多种区域神经阻滞用于髋关节镜检查后的疼痛缓解,但对于最佳技术尚无共识。这项回顾性研究旨在比较腰方肌(QL)阻滞和关节周围神经群(PENG)阻滞,以确定门诊髋关节镜检查后镇痛效果是否存在差异。
共确定了50例接受QL阻滞和50例接受PENG阻滞的连续门诊髋关节镜检查患者,并进行比较,以确定手术中心出院前围手术期阿片类药物总消耗量这一主要结局是否存在差异。重要的次要镇痛结局包括术后阿片类药物消耗量、言语评定量表(VRS)疼痛评分或在恢复区的总时间。比较并报告研究组(QL组与PENG组)之间相关变量的汇总统计数据。
对于QL组和PENG组,围手术期口服吗啡当量(OME)总量(69.5 vs 60mg;p = 0.40)、术后OME(15 vs 15.3mg;p = 0.96)或恢复区最大疼痛评分(7.0 vs 6.0;p = 0.41)均未观察到显著差异。术后,QL阻滞患者在术后在麻醉后恢复室(PACU)的时间比PENG阻滞患者更长(89.5 vs 72分钟;p<0.001)。24小时内没有患者出现疼痛控制不佳需要急诊就诊或住院的情况。QL或PENG阻滞后未报告神经并发症或运动无力的情况。
这项回顾性研究观察到,接受QL阻滞与PENG阻滞的髋关节镜检查患者的阿片类药物需求量和疼痛评分相似,尽管PENG阻滞患者在恢复区的时间较短。需要进行前瞻性对照试验以进一步探索和证实这些发现。