Francesco Vetrone, Stefano Marelli, Andrea Galimberti, Michele Umbrello, Miriam Gotti, Angelo Pezzi, Alessandro Girombelli
{"title":"全髋关节置换术中包膜神经组(PENG)联合股外侧皮神经(LFCN)阻滞与髂筋膜室阻滞(FICB):双盲随机对照试验。","authors":"Francesco Vetrone, Stefano Marelli, Andrea Galimberti, Michele Umbrello, Miriam Gotti, Angelo Pezzi, Alessandro Girombelli","doi":"10.3390/jpm15060230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Total hip arthroplasty (THA) improves the quality of life by alleviating pain and restoring function. The optimal pain control with minimal muscle weakness is paramount for early rehabilitation and for reducing complications. Although PROSPECT and ICAROS guidelines recommend the Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block (FICB), it is associated with insufficient pain relief and a prolonged quadriceps motor block. The association of the PENG (Pericapsular Nerve Group) with LFCN (lateral femoral cutaneous nerve) blocks may address these limitations, provide improved motor-sparing pain control, and offer a more tailored approach that enhances both an early postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction. <b>Methods:</b> A randomized controlled trial (November 2023-July 2024) compared the PENG + LFCN to the FICB in patients undergoing elective THAs under spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome was quadriceps weakness at 6 h post-block. Secondary outcomes included the degree of hip flexion and pain scores at 6, 24, and 48 h post-block, opioid consumption, and time to ambulation. <b>Results:</b> Fifty-eight patients were randomized (twenty-nine per group). The PENG + LFCN group achieved a significantly greater muscle strength (MRC: 4 [4; 4] vs. 3 [3; 4], <i>p</i> < 0.0001) and better hip flexion at all measured moments (6 h: 45° [37; 60] vs. 30° [25; 43], 24h: 59° [49; 66] vs. 47° [36; 50], 48 h: 62° [55; 70] vs. 50° [40; 55], all <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Resting pain was lower in the PENG + LFCN group (0 [0; 1], 0 [0; 2], and 0 [0; 1] vs. 2 [0; 3], 1 [0; 3], 1 [0; 3]), as was the dynamic pain during movement (1 [0; 2], 2 [2; 4], and 2 [1; 2] vs. 3 [2; 5], 3 [2; 4], and 3 [1; 3]; all <i>p</i> < 0.001), along with a lower total opioid consumption (0 [0; 0] vs. 7.5 [7.5; 22.5] MME, <i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions:</b> The PENG + LFCN block outperformed the FICB in muscle strength, hip flexion, pain control, and opioid use, suggesting it may be a more effective option for THAs.</p>","PeriodicalId":16722,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","volume":"15 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12193918/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) Associated with Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve (LFCN) Block Versus Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block (FICB) for Total Hip Replacement Surgery: Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Francesco Vetrone, Stefano Marelli, Andrea Galimberti, Michele Umbrello, Miriam Gotti, Angelo Pezzi, Alessandro Girombelli\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jpm15060230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Total hip arthroplasty (THA) improves the quality of life by alleviating pain and restoring function. The optimal pain control with minimal muscle weakness is paramount for early rehabilitation and for reducing complications. Although PROSPECT and ICAROS guidelines recommend the Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block (FICB), it is associated with insufficient pain relief and a prolonged quadriceps motor block. The association of the PENG (Pericapsular Nerve Group) with LFCN (lateral femoral cutaneous nerve) blocks may address these limitations, provide improved motor-sparing pain control, and offer a more tailored approach that enhances both an early postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction. <b>Methods:</b> A randomized controlled trial (November 2023-July 2024) compared the PENG + LFCN to the FICB in patients undergoing elective THAs under spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome was quadriceps weakness at 6 h post-block. Secondary outcomes included the degree of hip flexion and pain scores at 6, 24, and 48 h post-block, opioid consumption, and time to ambulation. <b>Results:</b> Fifty-eight patients were randomized (twenty-nine per group). The PENG + LFCN group achieved a significantly greater muscle strength (MRC: 4 [4; 4] vs. 3 [3; 4], <i>p</i> < 0.0001) and better hip flexion at all measured moments (6 h: 45° [37; 60] vs. 30° [25; 43], 24h: 59° [49; 66] vs. 47° [36; 50], 48 h: 62° [55; 70] vs. 50° [40; 55], all <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Resting pain was lower in the PENG + LFCN group (0 [0; 1], 0 [0; 2], and 0 [0; 1] vs. 2 [0; 3], 1 [0; 3], 1 [0; 3]), as was the dynamic pain during movement (1 [0; 2], 2 [2; 4], and 2 [1; 2] vs. 3 [2; 5], 3 [2; 4], and 3 [1; 3]; all <i>p</i> < 0.001), along with a lower total opioid consumption (0 [0; 0] vs. 7.5 [7.5; 22.5] MME, <i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions:</b> The PENG + LFCN block outperformed the FICB in muscle strength, hip flexion, pain control, and opioid use, suggesting it may be a more effective option for THAs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16722,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Personalized Medicine\",\"volume\":\"15 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12193918/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Personalized Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15060230\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15060230","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:全髋关节置换术(THA)通过减轻疼痛和恢复功能来改善生活质量。最佳疼痛控制与最小的肌肉无力是最重要的早期康复和减少并发症。尽管PROSPECT和ICAROS指南推荐髂筋膜隔室阻滞(FICB),但它与疼痛缓解不足和长时间的股四头肌运动阻滞相关。将PENG(包膜神经组)与LFCN(股外侧皮神经)阻滞联合使用可以解决这些局限性,提供更好的运动保留疼痛控制,并提供更有针对性的方法,提高术后早期恢复和患者满意度。方法:一项随机对照试验(2023年11月- 2024年7月)比较了脊髓麻醉下选择性tha患者的PENG + LFCN和FICB。阻滞后6小时的主要结局是股四头肌无力。次要结局包括阻滞后6、24和48小时的髋关节屈曲程度和疼痛评分、阿片类药物消耗和活动时间。结果:随机抽取58例患者,每组29例。PENG + LFCN组肌肉力量显著增加(MRC: 4;4] vs. 3 [3;4], p < 0.0001),在所有测量时刻髋屈曲度更好(6小时:45°[37;60°vs. 30°[25;43], 24h: 59°[49;66°vs. 47°[36;50], 48 h: 62°[55;70°vs. 50°[40];55],均p < 0.0001)。彭+ LFCN组静息疼痛较低(0;1], 0 [0;2], 0 [0;1] vs. 2 [0;3], 1 [0;3], 1 [0;3]),运动时的动态疼痛也是如此(1 [0;2], 2 [2;4], 2 [1;2] vs. 3 [2;5], 3 [2;4], 3 [1;3);所有p < 0.001),以及更低的阿片类药物总消费量(0 [0;0] vs. 7.5 [7.5;22.5] MME, p < 0.001)。结论:PENG + LFCN阻滞在肌肉力量、髋关节屈曲、疼痛控制和阿片类药物使用方面优于FICB,表明它可能是tha更有效的选择。
Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) Associated with Lateral Femoral Cutaneous Nerve (LFCN) Block Versus Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block (FICB) for Total Hip Replacement Surgery: Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.
Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) improves the quality of life by alleviating pain and restoring function. The optimal pain control with minimal muscle weakness is paramount for early rehabilitation and for reducing complications. Although PROSPECT and ICAROS guidelines recommend the Fascia Iliaca Compartment Block (FICB), it is associated with insufficient pain relief and a prolonged quadriceps motor block. The association of the PENG (Pericapsular Nerve Group) with LFCN (lateral femoral cutaneous nerve) blocks may address these limitations, provide improved motor-sparing pain control, and offer a more tailored approach that enhances both an early postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction. Methods: A randomized controlled trial (November 2023-July 2024) compared the PENG + LFCN to the FICB in patients undergoing elective THAs under spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome was quadriceps weakness at 6 h post-block. Secondary outcomes included the degree of hip flexion and pain scores at 6, 24, and 48 h post-block, opioid consumption, and time to ambulation. Results: Fifty-eight patients were randomized (twenty-nine per group). The PENG + LFCN group achieved a significantly greater muscle strength (MRC: 4 [4; 4] vs. 3 [3; 4], p < 0.0001) and better hip flexion at all measured moments (6 h: 45° [37; 60] vs. 30° [25; 43], 24h: 59° [49; 66] vs. 47° [36; 50], 48 h: 62° [55; 70] vs. 50° [40; 55], all p < 0.0001). Resting pain was lower in the PENG + LFCN group (0 [0; 1], 0 [0; 2], and 0 [0; 1] vs. 2 [0; 3], 1 [0; 3], 1 [0; 3]), as was the dynamic pain during movement (1 [0; 2], 2 [2; 4], and 2 [1; 2] vs. 3 [2; 5], 3 [2; 4], and 3 [1; 3]; all p < 0.001), along with a lower total opioid consumption (0 [0; 0] vs. 7.5 [7.5; 22.5] MME, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The PENG + LFCN block outperformed the FICB in muscle strength, hip flexion, pain control, and opioid use, suggesting it may be a more effective option for THAs.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Personalized Medicine (JPM; ISSN 2075-4426) is an international, open access journal aimed at bringing all aspects of personalized medicine to one platform. JPM publishes cutting edge, innovative preclinical and translational scientific research and technologies related to personalized medicine (e.g., pharmacogenomics/proteomics, systems biology). JPM recognizes that personalized medicine—the assessment of genetic, environmental and host factors that cause variability of individuals—is a challenging, transdisciplinary topic that requires discussions from a range of experts. For a comprehensive perspective of personalized medicine, JPM aims to integrate expertise from the molecular and translational sciences, therapeutics and diagnostics, as well as discussions of regulatory, social, ethical and policy aspects. We provide a forum to bring together academic and clinical researchers, biotechnology, diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies, health professionals, regulatory and ethical experts, and government and regulatory authorities.