Ultrasound-Guided Local Anesthetic Infiltration Between the Popliteal Artery and the Capsule of the Posterior Knee (IPACK) Block for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 1.5 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Local and Regional Anesthesia Pub Date : 2021-05-12 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.2147/LRA.S303827
Ryan S D'Souza, Brendan J Langford, David A Olsen, Rebecca L Johnson
{"title":"Ultrasound-Guided Local Anesthetic Infiltration Between the Popliteal Artery and the Capsule of the Posterior Knee (IPACK) Block for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Ryan S D'Souza,&nbsp;Brendan J Langford,&nbsp;David A Olsen,&nbsp;Rebecca L Johnson","doi":"10.2147/LRA.S303827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Posterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is common despite multimodal analgesia and regional anesthesia use. This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic outcomes after inclusion of local anesthetic infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the knee (iPACK) block versus pathways without iPACK. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus) were searched from inception to 10/11/2020. Eligible studies evaluated iPACK use on primary outcomes: opioid consumption and pain scores with movement. Secondary outcomes included rest pain, patient satisfaction, length of stay (LOS), gait distance, knee range of motion (ROM), and complications. Bias and quality were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. Eight RCTs (777 patients) were included. iPACK block use demonstrated similar opioid consumption in the PACU (4/7 RCTs) and 24 hours after TKA (5/7 RCTs) compared to without iPACK (moderate-quality GRADE evidence). Additionally, iPACK block use demonstrated lower movement pain scores in PACU (3/5 RCTs) but similar or higher pain scores after 24 hours (5/7 RCTs; low-quality GRADE evidence). Studies consistently reported no difference in gait distance (4/4 RCTs) or complications (7/7 RCTs) between treatment arms (high-quality GRADE evidence), although differing effect estimates were observed with resting pain, satisfaction, LOS, and knee ROM. This review provides a foundation of knowledge on iPACK efficacy. While evidence does not currently support widespread inclusion of iPACK within enhanced recovery pathways for TKA, limitations suggest further study is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":18203,"journal":{"name":"Local and Regional Anesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/45/41/lra-14-85.PMC8126972.pdf","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Local and Regional Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S303827","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Posterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is common despite multimodal analgesia and regional anesthesia use. This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic outcomes after inclusion of local anesthetic infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the knee (iPACK) block versus pathways without iPACK. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus) were searched from inception to 10/11/2020. Eligible studies evaluated iPACK use on primary outcomes: opioid consumption and pain scores with movement. Secondary outcomes included rest pain, patient satisfaction, length of stay (LOS), gait distance, knee range of motion (ROM), and complications. Bias and quality were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. Eight RCTs (777 patients) were included. iPACK block use demonstrated similar opioid consumption in the PACU (4/7 RCTs) and 24 hours after TKA (5/7 RCTs) compared to without iPACK (moderate-quality GRADE evidence). Additionally, iPACK block use demonstrated lower movement pain scores in PACU (3/5 RCTs) but similar or higher pain scores after 24 hours (5/7 RCTs; low-quality GRADE evidence). Studies consistently reported no difference in gait distance (4/4 RCTs) or complications (7/7 RCTs) between treatment arms (high-quality GRADE evidence), although differing effect estimates were observed with resting pain, satisfaction, LOS, and knee ROM. This review provides a foundation of knowledge on iPACK efficacy. While evidence does not currently support widespread inclusion of iPACK within enhanced recovery pathways for TKA, limitations suggest further study is warranted.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

超声引导下腘动脉与后膝关节囊(IPACK)阻滞之间的局麻药浸润用于初次全膝关节置换术:随机对照试验的系统综述。
全膝关节置换术(TKA)后膝关节后部疼痛是常见的,尽管多模式镇痛和区域麻醉的使用。本综述纳入了随机对照试验(rct),比较了在腘动脉和膝关节囊之间(iPACK)阻滞局部麻醉浸润后与不经iPACK阻滞的镇痛结果。检索了MEDLINE、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、Scopus等电子数据库,检索时间为成立至2020年10月11日。符合条件的研究评估了iPACK使用的主要结果:阿片类药物消耗和运动疼痛评分。次要结局包括休息疼痛、患者满意度、住院时间(LOS)、步态距离、膝关节活动范围(ROM)和并发症。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具和推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)指南对偏倚和质量进行评价。纳入8项rct(777例患者)。与未使用iPACK相比,PACU (4/7 RCTs)和TKA后24小时(5/7 RCTs)阻断使用iPACK显示出相似的阿片类药物消耗(中等质量等级证据)。此外,使用iPACK阻滞显示PACU患者的运动疼痛评分较低(3/5 rct),但24小时后疼痛评分相似或更高(5/7 rct;低质量GRADE证据)。尽管在静息疼痛、满意度、LOS和膝关节ROM方面观察到不同的效果估计,但研究一致报告两组之间的步态距离(4/4 RCTs)或并发症(7/7 RCTs)没有差异(高质量GRADE证据)。本综述为iPACK疗效提供了基础知识。虽然目前没有证据支持iPACK广泛纳入TKA的增强恢复途径,但局限性表明有必要进一步研究。
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
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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