Intraoperative landmark-based genicular nerve block versus periarticular infiltration for postoperative analgesia in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized non-inferiority trial.

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Wannida Kertkiatkachorn, Srihatach Ngarmukos, Aree Tanavalee, Chottawan Tanavalee, Wirinaree Kampitak
{"title":"Intraoperative landmark-based genicular nerve block versus periarticular infiltration for postoperative analgesia in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized non-inferiority trial.","authors":"Wannida Kertkiatkachorn, Srihatach Ngarmukos, Aree Tanavalee, Chottawan Tanavalee, Wirinaree Kampitak","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2023-104563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Genicular nerve blocks (GNBs) are an emerging technique that have been used as a part of multimodal analgesia for total knee arthroplasty. The efficacy of intraoperative landmark-based GNBs, a recently introduced technique, has been established. We hypothesized that it would provide non-inferior postoperative analgesia compared with periarticular infiltration (PAI) when combined with continuous adductor canal block.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study randomized 140 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty to receive either intraoperative landmark-based GNB (GNB group) or PAI (PAI group), with 139 completing the study. The primary outcomes were the pain scores at rest and during movement at 12 hours postoperatively on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale; the non-inferiority margin was 1. Pain scores at additional time points, intravenous morphine consumption, time to first rescue analgesia, functional performance and muscle strength tests, and sleep disturbance were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 12 hours postoperatively, the PAI and GNB groups had median resting pain scores of 0 (0-2) and 0 (0-2), respectively. The median difference was 0 (95% CI -0.4 to 0.4, p=1), with the 95% CI upper limit below the prespecified non-inferiority margin. The median pain score during movement was 1.5 (0-2.3) and 2 (1-3.1) in the PAI and GNB groups, respectively. The median difference was 0.9 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.6, p=0.004), failing to demonstrate non-inferiority. The GNB group had higher intravenous morphine consumption at 12 hours postoperatively and a shorter time to first rescue analgesia.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GNB compared with PAI provides non-inferior resting pain relief. Non-inferiority was not established for pain during movement.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>TCTR20220406001 (www.thaiclinicaltrials.org).</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"669-676"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2023-104563","RegionNum":2,"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

Introduction: Genicular nerve blocks (GNBs) are an emerging technique that have been used as a part of multimodal analgesia for total knee arthroplasty. The efficacy of intraoperative landmark-based GNBs, a recently introduced technique, has been established. We hypothesized that it would provide non-inferior postoperative analgesia compared with periarticular infiltration (PAI) when combined with continuous adductor canal block.

Methods: This study randomized 140 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty to receive either intraoperative landmark-based GNB (GNB group) or PAI (PAI group), with 139 completing the study. The primary outcomes were the pain scores at rest and during movement at 12 hours postoperatively on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale; the non-inferiority margin was 1. Pain scores at additional time points, intravenous morphine consumption, time to first rescue analgesia, functional performance and muscle strength tests, and sleep disturbance were also assessed.

Results: At 12 hours postoperatively, the PAI and GNB groups had median resting pain scores of 0 (0-2) and 0 (0-2), respectively. The median difference was 0 (95% CI -0.4 to 0.4, p=1), with the 95% CI upper limit below the prespecified non-inferiority margin. The median pain score during movement was 1.5 (0-2.3) and 2 (1-3.1) in the PAI and GNB groups, respectively. The median difference was 0.9 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.6, p=0.004), failing to demonstrate non-inferiority. The GNB group had higher intravenous morphine consumption at 12 hours postoperatively and a shorter time to first rescue analgesia.

Conclusions: GNB compared with PAI provides non-inferior resting pain relief. Non-inferiority was not established for pain during movement.

Trial registration number: TCTR20220406001 (www.thaiclinicaltrials.org).

基于术中标志的膝神经阻滞与关节周围浸润用于全膝关节置换术后镇痛:一项随机非劣效性试验。
引言:生殖器神经阻滞(GNBs)是一种新兴技术,已被用作全膝关节置换术多模式镇痛的一部分。最近引入的一项技术——基于术中标志的GNBs的疗效已经确定。我们假设,与关节周围浸润(PAI)联合连续内收肌管阻滞相比,它将提供非劣效的术后镇痛。方法:本研究随机分为140组 接受全膝关节置换术的患者接受基于术中标志的GNB(GNB组)或PAI(PAI组),其中139人完成了研究。主要结果是12岁时休息和运动时的疼痛评分 术后数小时,采用11分数值评定量表;非劣效差为1。还评估了额外时间点的疼痛评分、静脉注射吗啡的消耗量、首次抢救镇痛的时间、功能表现和肌肉力量测试以及睡眠障碍。结果:12岁 术后数小时,PAI组和GNB组的静息疼痛评分中位数分别为0(0-2)和0(0-2)。中位差异为0(95%CI-0.4至0.4,p=1) CI上限低于预先指定的非劣效性界限。PAI组和GNB组在运动过程中的中位疼痛评分分别为1.5(0-2.3)和2(1-3.1)。中位差异为0.9(95% CI 0.3至1.6,p=0.004),未能证明非劣效性。GNB组12岁时的静脉吗啡消耗量较高 术后数小时,首次镇痛时间更短。结论:与PAI相比,GNB提供了非劣性的静息疼痛缓解。运动过程中的疼痛没有建立非自卑感。试验注册号:TCTR20220406001(www.thaiclinicaltrials.org)。
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
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
×
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