全膝关节置换术后关节内收肌管阻滞的镇痛效果与传统超声引导下的收肌管阻滞相当:一项前瞻性随机对照试验。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Deyong Huang, Dazhi Zhang, Yi Jiang, Jun Yi, Ke Sun, Hongyi Shao
{"title":"全膝关节置换术后关节内收肌管阻滞的镇痛效果与传统超声引导下的收肌管阻滞相当:一项前瞻性随机对照试验。","authors":"Deyong Huang, Dazhi Zhang, Yi Jiang, Jun Yi, Ke Sun, Hongyi Shao","doi":"10.1055/a-2501-1143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>An adductor canal block (ACB) is widely accepted as a regional nerve block for pain management following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, no consensus exists concerning whether the analgesic effect is greater when joint surgeons perform intra-articular ACBs (IA-ACBs) or when anesthesiologists perform ultrasound-guided ACBs (UG-ACBs). We hypothesized that intra-articular ACBs (IA-ACBs) performed by joint surgeons and UG-ACBs performed by anesthesiologists based on peri-articular injections (PAI) would yield equivalent analgesic effects.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This prospective randomized controlled trial included 61 patients who underwent IA-ACBs and 56 patients who received UG-ACB with additional PAI for post-TKA pain management. The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed using numeric rating scale scores (NRS) at rest and during exercise. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and functional recovery. We also investigated local and systemic adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, and wound complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups of patients experienced comparable analgesic effects for both IA-ACB and UG-ACB pain management; however, those who received IA-ACBs were prescribed more opioid equivalents than those in the UG-ACB group on postoperative day 1 (P = 0.048). No differences between the groups were observed regarding local or systemic adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IA-ACBs performed by joint surgeons provided equivalent analgesic effects to UG-ACBs performed by anesthesiologists. However, IA-ACBs may lead to a higher postoperative requirement for opioid analgesics.</p>","PeriodicalId":48798,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Knee Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intra-articular adductor canal block has equivalent analgesic effect to traditional ultrasound-guided adductor canal block after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Deyong Huang, Dazhi Zhang, Yi Jiang, Jun Yi, Ke Sun, Hongyi Shao\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2501-1143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>An adductor canal block (ACB) is widely accepted as a regional nerve block for pain management following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, no consensus exists concerning whether the analgesic effect is greater when joint surgeons perform intra-articular ACBs (IA-ACBs) or when anesthesiologists perform ultrasound-guided ACBs (UG-ACBs). We hypothesized that intra-articular ACBs (IA-ACBs) performed by joint surgeons and UG-ACBs performed by anesthesiologists based on peri-articular injections (PAI) would yield equivalent analgesic effects.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This prospective randomized controlled trial included 61 patients who underwent IA-ACBs and 56 patients who received UG-ACB with additional PAI for post-TKA pain management. The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed using numeric rating scale scores (NRS) at rest and during exercise. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and functional recovery. We also investigated local and systemic adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, and wound complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups of patients experienced comparable analgesic effects for both IA-ACB and UG-ACB pain management; however, those who received IA-ACBs were prescribed more opioid equivalents than those in the UG-ACB group on postoperative day 1 (P = 0.048). No differences between the groups were observed regarding local or systemic adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IA-ACBs performed by joint surgeons provided equivalent analgesic effects to UG-ACBs performed by anesthesiologists. However, IA-ACBs may lead to a higher postoperative requirement for opioid analgesics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48798,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Knee Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Knee Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2501-1143\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Knee Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2501-1143","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:内收肌管阻滞(ACB)被广泛认为是全膝关节置换术(TKA)后疼痛治疗的区域神经阻滞。然而,关于关节外科医生进行关节内 ACB(IA-ACB)或麻醉科医生进行超声引导 ACB(UG-ACB)时镇痛效果是否更佳,目前尚未达成共识。我们假设,由关节外科医生实施的关节腔内 ACB(IA-ACB)和由麻醉科医生实施的基于关节周围注射(PAI)的 UG-ACB 将产生同等的镇痛效果:这项前瞻性随机对照试验纳入了 61 名接受 IA-ACB 的患者和 56 名接受 UG-ACB 并附加 PAI 的患者,以治疗 TKA 术后疼痛。主要结果是使用数字评分量表(NRS)评估患者在休息和运动时的术后疼痛。进行评估。次要结果包括阿片类药物的消耗量和功能恢复情况。我们还调查了局部和全身不良事件,包括恶心、呕吐和伤口并发症:两组患者在 IA-ACB 和 UG-ACB 疼痛治疗中的镇痛效果相当;但在术后第 1 天,接受 IA-ACB 的患者比 UG-ACB 组患者获得了更多的阿片类药物当量(P = 0.048)。在局部或全身不良事件方面,两组间未发现差异:结论:由关节外科医生实施的 IA-ACB 与由麻醉科医生实施的 UG-ACB 具有相同的镇痛效果。然而,IA-ACB可能会导致术后对阿片类镇痛药的需求增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intra-articular adductor canal block has equivalent analgesic effect to traditional ultrasound-guided adductor canal block after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: An adductor canal block (ACB) is widely accepted as a regional nerve block for pain management following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, no consensus exists concerning whether the analgesic effect is greater when joint surgeons perform intra-articular ACBs (IA-ACBs) or when anesthesiologists perform ultrasound-guided ACBs (UG-ACBs). We hypothesized that intra-articular ACBs (IA-ACBs) performed by joint surgeons and UG-ACBs performed by anesthesiologists based on peri-articular injections (PAI) would yield equivalent analgesic effects.

Material and methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial included 61 patients who underwent IA-ACBs and 56 patients who received UG-ACB with additional PAI for post-TKA pain management. The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed using numeric rating scale scores (NRS) at rest and during exercise. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and functional recovery. We also investigated local and systemic adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, and wound complications.

Results: Both groups of patients experienced comparable analgesic effects for both IA-ACB and UG-ACB pain management; however, those who received IA-ACBs were prescribed more opioid equivalents than those in the UG-ACB group on postoperative day 1 (P = 0.048). No differences between the groups were observed regarding local or systemic adverse events.

Conclusions: IA-ACBs performed by joint surgeons provided equivalent analgesic effects to UG-ACBs performed by anesthesiologists. However, IA-ACBs may lead to a higher postoperative requirement for opioid analgesics.

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
4.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: The Journal of Knee Surgery covers a range of issues relating to the orthopaedic techniques of arthroscopy, arthroplasty, and reconstructive surgery of the knee joint. In addition to original peer-review articles, this periodical provides details on emerging surgical techniques, as well as reviews and special focus sections. Topics of interest include cruciate ligament repair and reconstruction, bone grafting, cartilage regeneration, and magnetic resonance imaging.
×
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