Infiltration of local anesthetic in the Interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee "IPACK block" versus adductor canal block "ACB" for pain relief after open wedge high tibial osteotomy: a randomized clinical trial.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Ghada M Aboelfadl, Abdelraheem M Elawamy, Salwa H Ahmed, Fatma J Askar, Ahmad M Aboelfadl
{"title":"Infiltration of local anesthetic in the Interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee \"IPACK block\" versus adductor canal block \"ACB\" for pain relief after open wedge high tibial osteotomy: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Ghada M Aboelfadl, Abdelraheem M Elawamy, Salwa H Ahmed, Fatma J Askar, Ahmad M Aboelfadl","doi":"10.23736/S0375-9393.24.17984-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A high tibial osteotomy is usually associated with severe postoperative pain. Both adductor canal block (ACB) and interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee (IPACK) have been described as effective block techniques for providing analgesia after knee surgeries, with few comparisons in wedge osteotomy cases. We aim to compare the postoperative analgesic profile of the previously mentioned two block techniques in patients undergoing tibial osteotomies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty patients were enrolled in this randomized prospective trial (30 received IPACK and 30 received ACB). Both blocks were installed before the spinal anesthesia after infiltration of 2 mL lidocaine 2%. Twenty mL of bupivacaine 0.25% mixed with dexamethasone as anesthetic adjuvant were used for both blocks. The postoperative analgesic profiles were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Postoperative pain scores were lower in the IPACK group, and that decrease was evident throughout the first 10 hours postoperatively. Additionally, the duration of analgesia was much prolonged with the same block (487.50±82.39 vs. 301.93±92.06 minutes with ACB). There was a significant decline in postoperative analgesic consumption (1.27±0.45 vs. 1.8±0.61 gm, P=0.000), and a significant increase in the ambulation distance (19.10±0.60 vs. 17.73±0.45 m, P=0.000) with a significant decline in the duration of hospitalization (43.27±7.61 vs. 54±8.35 hours) in the IPACK group compared to the ACB group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IPACK is a superior block technique compared to ACB in patients undergoing high tibial osteotomy regarding postoperative analgesia, ambulation distance, and patient satisfaction with little rate of adverse events in both groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":18522,"journal":{"name":"Minerva anestesiologica","volume":"90 7-8","pages":"618-625"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva anestesiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.24.17984-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A high tibial osteotomy is usually associated with severe postoperative pain. Both adductor canal block (ACB) and interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee (IPACK) have been described as effective block techniques for providing analgesia after knee surgeries, with few comparisons in wedge osteotomy cases. We aim to compare the postoperative analgesic profile of the previously mentioned two block techniques in patients undergoing tibial osteotomies.

Methods: Sixty patients were enrolled in this randomized prospective trial (30 received IPACK and 30 received ACB). Both blocks were installed before the spinal anesthesia after infiltration of 2 mL lidocaine 2%. Twenty mL of bupivacaine 0.25% mixed with dexamethasone as anesthetic adjuvant were used for both blocks. The postoperative analgesic profiles were compared between the two groups.

Results: Postoperative pain scores were lower in the IPACK group, and that decrease was evident throughout the first 10 hours postoperatively. Additionally, the duration of analgesia was much prolonged with the same block (487.50±82.39 vs. 301.93±92.06 minutes with ACB). There was a significant decline in postoperative analgesic consumption (1.27±0.45 vs. 1.8±0.61 gm, P=0.000), and a significant increase in the ambulation distance (19.10±0.60 vs. 17.73±0.45 m, P=0.000) with a significant decline in the duration of hospitalization (43.27±7.61 vs. 54±8.35 hours) in the IPACK group compared to the ACB group.

Conclusions: IPACK is a superior block technique compared to ACB in patients undergoing high tibial osteotomy regarding postoperative analgesia, ambulation distance, and patient satisfaction with little rate of adverse events in both groups.

在膝关节后侧腘动脉与关节囊之间的间隙浸润局麻药 "IPACK阻滞 "与内收肌管阻滞 "ACB "以缓解开放性楔形高胫骨截骨术后疼痛:一项随机临床试验。
背景:胫骨高位截骨术通常伴有严重的术后疼痛。内收肌管阻滞(ACB)和腘动脉与膝关节后囊间隙阻滞(IPACK)都被描述为膝关节手术后提供镇痛的有效阻滞技术,但很少在楔形截骨病例中进行比较。我们旨在比较上述两种阻滞技术在胫骨截骨术患者术后的镇痛效果:60名患者参加了这项随机前瞻性试验(30人接受IPACK阻滞,30人接受ACB阻滞)。两种阻滞均在浸润 2 mL 2% 利多卡因后进行脊髓麻醉。两种阻滞均使用了 20 mL 0.25% 布比卡因混合地塞米松作为麻醉辅助剂。比较了两组患者的术后镇痛情况:结果:IPACK 组的术后疼痛评分较低,且在术后 10 小时内疼痛评分明显下降。此外,相同阻滞的镇痛持续时间更长(487.50±82.39 分钟对 ACB 的 301.93±92.06 分钟)。与 ACB 组相比,IPACK 组的术后镇痛药消耗量明显减少(1.27±0.45 克 vs. 1.8±0.61 克,P=0.000),行走距离明显增加(19.10±0.60 米 vs. 17.73±0.45 米,P=0.000),住院时间明显缩短(43.27±7.61 小时 vs. 54±8.35 小时):结论:对于接受胫骨高位截骨术的患者来说,在术后镇痛、行走距离和患者满意度方面,IPACK是一种优于ACB的阻滞技术,而且两组患者的不良反应发生率都很低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva anestesiologica
Minerva anestesiologica 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
367
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Minerva Anestesiologica is the journal of the Italian National Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care. Minerva Anestesiologica publishes scientific papers on Anesthesiology, Intensive care, Analgesia, Perioperative Medicine and related fields. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信