膝关节镜韧带重建术患者术后疼痛治疗中膝神经阻滞与内收肌管阻滞的比较:随机对照试验

IF 2.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Sandeep S. N. Sujatha, Kapil Gupta, Sushil Guria, Priyanka H. Chhabra
{"title":"膝关节镜韧带重建术患者术后疼痛治疗中膝神经阻滞与内收肌管阻滞的比较:随机对照试验","authors":"Sandeep S. N. Sujatha, Kapil Gupta, Sushil Guria, Priyanka H. Chhabra","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_994_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Genicular nerve block (GNB) is beneficial in early ambulation and faster patient discharge since it selectively blocks articular branches and is motor-sparing. This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided GNB with adductor canal block (ACB) in patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).\n \n \n \n This randomised, double-blind study was conducted on 38 adults undergoing arthroscopic ACLR. Patients in Group GNB (n = 19) received US-guided GNB with 3 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine and 2 mg dexamethasone. Patients in Group ACB (n = 19) received US-guided ACB with 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine with 6 mg dexamethasone. Postoperative rescue analgesia was provided by intravenous Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) with morphine. The primary outcome was Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores over 24 h. The secondary outcome was the duration of analgesia and 24-h morphine consumption. The Chi-square test was used to test the statistical significance between categorical variables. Independent t-test or Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables.\n \n \n \n NRS scores at rest and physical activity at 24 h were similar in both the groups (P = 0.429 and P = 0.101, respectively). The mean time to rescue analgesia was comparable in both groups (Group GNB: 820.79 [483.65] min [95% confidence interval {CI}: 603.31–1038.27] and Group ACB: 858.95 [460.06] min [95% CI: 652.08, 1065.82], P = 0.805), and the mean 24-h morphine consumption was also comparable in both groups (P = 1.000).\n \n \n \n US-guided GNB has an analgesic efficacy similar to US-guided ACB for patients undergoing arthroscopic ACLR.\n","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of genicular nerve block with adductor canal block for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee ligament reconstruction: A randomised controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Sandeep S. N. Sujatha, Kapil Gupta, Sushil Guria, Priyanka H. Chhabra\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ija.ija_994_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Genicular nerve block (GNB) is beneficial in early ambulation and faster patient discharge since it selectively blocks articular branches and is motor-sparing. This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided GNB with adductor canal block (ACB) in patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).\\n \\n \\n \\n This randomised, double-blind study was conducted on 38 adults undergoing arthroscopic ACLR. Patients in Group GNB (n = 19) received US-guided GNB with 3 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine and 2 mg dexamethasone. Patients in Group ACB (n = 19) received US-guided ACB with 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine with 6 mg dexamethasone. Postoperative rescue analgesia was provided by intravenous Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) with morphine. The primary outcome was Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores over 24 h. The secondary outcome was the duration of analgesia and 24-h morphine consumption. The Chi-square test was used to test the statistical significance between categorical variables. Independent t-test or Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables.\\n \\n \\n \\n NRS scores at rest and physical activity at 24 h were similar in both the groups (P = 0.429 and P = 0.101, respectively). The mean time to rescue analgesia was comparable in both groups (Group GNB: 820.79 [483.65] min [95% confidence interval {CI}: 603.31–1038.27] and Group ACB: 858.95 [460.06] min [95% CI: 652.08, 1065.82], P = 0.805), and the mean 24-h morphine consumption was also comparable in both groups (P = 1.000).\\n \\n \\n \\n US-guided GNB has an analgesic efficacy similar to US-guided ACB for patients undergoing arthroscopic ACLR.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":13339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_994_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_994_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

膝神经阻滞(GNB)可选择性地阻滞关节分支并保留运动功能,因此有利于患者尽早下床活动和更快出院。本研究旨在比较超声(US)引导下的膝关节神经阻滞与内收肌管阻滞(ACB)对接受关节镜前交叉韧带重建术(ACLR)患者的镇痛效果。 这项随机双盲研究针对 38 名接受关节镜前交叉韧带重建术的成人进行。GNB组患者(n = 19)在US引导下使用3毫升0.25%布比卡因和2毫克地塞米松进行GNB。ACB 组(19 人)患者在 US 引导下接受 ACB,使用 20 毫升 0.25% 布比卡因和 6 毫克地塞米松。术后通过静脉注射吗啡进行患者自控镇痛(PCA)。主要结果是24小时内的数字评分量表(NRS)疼痛评分,次要结果是镇痛持续时间和24小时吗啡消耗量。采用卡方检验来检验分类变量之间的统计学意义。独立 t 检验或曼-惠特尼 U 检验用于比较连续变量。 两组患者休息时的 NRS 评分和 24 小时体力活动时的 NRS 评分相似(分别为 P = 0.429 和 P = 0.101)。两组抢救镇痛的平均时间相当(GNB 组:820.79 [483.65] min [95% 置信区间{CI}:603.31-1038.27] ACB 组:858.95 [460.06] min [95% CI:652.08, 1065.82],P = 0.805),两组 24 h 的平均吗啡消耗量也相当(P = 1.000)。 对于接受关节镜 ACLR 的患者,US 引导 GNB 的镇痛效果与 US 引导 ACB 相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of genicular nerve block with adductor canal block for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee ligament reconstruction: A randomised controlled trial
Genicular nerve block (GNB) is beneficial in early ambulation and faster patient discharge since it selectively blocks articular branches and is motor-sparing. This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided GNB with adductor canal block (ACB) in patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). This randomised, double-blind study was conducted on 38 adults undergoing arthroscopic ACLR. Patients in Group GNB (n = 19) received US-guided GNB with 3 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine and 2 mg dexamethasone. Patients in Group ACB (n = 19) received US-guided ACB with 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine with 6 mg dexamethasone. Postoperative rescue analgesia was provided by intravenous Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) with morphine. The primary outcome was Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores over 24 h. The secondary outcome was the duration of analgesia and 24-h morphine consumption. The Chi-square test was used to test the statistical significance between categorical variables. Independent t-test or Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables. NRS scores at rest and physical activity at 24 h were similar in both the groups (P = 0.429 and P = 0.101, respectively). The mean time to rescue analgesia was comparable in both groups (Group GNB: 820.79 [483.65] min [95% confidence interval {CI}: 603.31–1038.27] and Group ACB: 858.95 [460.06] min [95% CI: 652.08, 1065.82], P = 0.805), and the mean 24-h morphine consumption was also comparable in both groups (P = 1.000). US-guided GNB has an analgesic efficacy similar to US-guided ACB for patients undergoing arthroscopic ACLR.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 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