Pericapsular Nervous Group Block versus Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Block Using the Same Injection Volume in Primary HIP Arthroplasty Prospective Observational Study
Luis Baeza Álvarez, José Manuel López González, Gustavo Illodo Miramontes, Bárbara María Jiménez Gómez, María Vega Colon, Alejandra Williams Aguirre, Pablo Casas Reza, Servando López Álvarez, Shu-Wei Liao, Bing-Ying Ho, Meng-Ta Yang, Jin-De Hou, Chih-Chung Liu, I-Chi Wu, Jui-An Lin, Felice Galluccio
{"title":"Pericapsular Nervous Group Block versus Suprainguinal Fascia Iliaca Block Using the Same Injection Volume in Primary HIP Arthroplasty Prospective Observational Study","authors":"Luis Baeza Álvarez, José Manuel López González, Gustavo Illodo Miramontes, Bárbara María Jiménez Gómez, María Vega Colon, Alejandra Williams Aguirre, Pablo Casas Reza, Servando López Álvarez, Shu-Wei Liao, Bing-Ying Ho, Meng-Ta Yang, Jin-De Hou, Chih-Chung Liu, I-Chi Wu, Jui-An Lin, Felice Galluccio","doi":"10.1155/2024/6952692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>Objectives</i>. To determine the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block’s postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety compared to the suprainguinal fascia iliaca (SFI) block in patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty using the same injectate volume. <i>Material and Methods</i>. Between January 2021 and March 2022, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification I–III patients scheduled for hip arthroplasty were included in this study. After standard monitoring and subarachnoid anesthesia, an ultrasound-guided PENG or SFI block with 20 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine was performed for postoperative analgesia. All patients were assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS) at presurgery, upon arrival at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and in the postoperative period at 2, 4, 12, and 24 hours. The need for analgesic rescue and adverse effects was also assessed. <i>Results</i>. A total of 130 patients were included in the study (62 PENG block and 68 SFI block). Both blocks were equally effective in managing postoperative pain without any statistically significant differences except at 12 h (<i>p</i> = 0.023), where the deviation found was not clinically relevant. The median total morphine consumption was 0 mg [0–2] in the PENG block group and 0 mg [0–2] in the SFI block group. A more significant motor block was found in the first 6 hours in the SFI block group (<i>p</i> = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the ease of performing PENG (79%) or SFI (85%) blocks. No major complications were recorded in both groups, and patient satisfaction was high (83.9% for the PENG block group vs. 91.2% for the SFI block group). <i>Discussion</i>. Both blocks have been demonstrated to be effective for postoperative analgesia in hip arthroplasty and should be integrated as a multimodal analgesic strategy. The lesser degree of motor block recorded in the first hours with the PENG block makes it the most suitable option for early recovery. Both techniques were easy and safe to perform.</p>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/6952692","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives. To determine the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block’s postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety compared to the suprainguinal fascia iliaca (SFI) block in patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty using the same injectate volume. Material and Methods. Between January 2021 and March 2022, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification I–III patients scheduled for hip arthroplasty were included in this study. After standard monitoring and subarachnoid anesthesia, an ultrasound-guided PENG or SFI block with 20 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine was performed for postoperative analgesia. All patients were assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS) at presurgery, upon arrival at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and in the postoperative period at 2, 4, 12, and 24 hours. The need for analgesic rescue and adverse effects was also assessed. Results. A total of 130 patients were included in the study (62 PENG block and 68 SFI block). Both blocks were equally effective in managing postoperative pain without any statistically significant differences except at 12 h (p = 0.023), where the deviation found was not clinically relevant. The median total morphine consumption was 0 mg [0–2] in the PENG block group and 0 mg [0–2] in the SFI block group. A more significant motor block was found in the first 6 hours in the SFI block group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the ease of performing PENG (79%) or SFI (85%) blocks. No major complications were recorded in both groups, and patient satisfaction was high (83.9% for the PENG block group vs. 91.2% for the SFI block group). Discussion. Both blocks have been demonstrated to be effective for postoperative analgesia in hip arthroplasty and should be integrated as a multimodal analgesic strategy. The lesser degree of motor block recorded in the first hours with the PENG block makes it the most suitable option for early recovery. Both techniques were easy and safe to perform.
期刊介绍:
IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal.
IJCP publishes:
Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed]
Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
International scope
IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.