内收管阻滞与股神经阻滞对全膝关节置换术患者股四头肌肌力及术后疼痛影响的比较研究

K. Priyanka, Abhiram Nakka
{"title":"内收管阻滞与股神经阻滞对全膝关节置换术患者股四头肌肌力及术后疼痛影响的比较研究","authors":"K. Priyanka, Abhiram Nakka","doi":"10.26611/10151912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Total knee replacement (TKR) patients experience severe pain during the early postoperative period1 as it involves extensive bone resection and soft tissue manipulation. The objective of this prospective, randomized, comparative study is therefore to compare the adductor canal block (ACB) with femoral nerve block (FNB) on quadriceps muscle strength preservation and analgesic efficacy in the patients undergoing TKR. Material and Methods: Present study conducted in ppatients of age group 35-70 years, ASA physical status class I, II and III patients posted for unilateral TKR. 50 ppatients were randomized equally by block randomization technique. Group 1 received Adductor Canal Block (15 ml bolus of 0.18% ropivacaine followed by infusion at the rate of 8-10ml/hr), Group 2 received Femoral Nerve Block (15 ml bolus of 0.18% ropivacaine followed by infusion at the rate of 8-10ml/hr) with electromechanical infusion pump for 24 Hours. Results: Gender, BMI distribution between two groups doesn’t have significant difference. Out of 50 patients in our study 19.6% (9) patients were ASA I, 75% (39) were ASA II and 5.4% (2) patients were ASA III. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were measured preoperatively, post-operative at 6-8 hrs, at 12 hrs. and at 24 hrs. The difference in those parameters at any given time was not statistically significant. ACB is similar to FNB with respect to quadriceps muscle strength measured by MRC grading at 6 hours. However ACB is very effective in preserving the quadriceps muscle strength measured by MRC grading at 12 and 24 hours with a statistically significant ‘P’ value of 0.0001. Conclusion Adductor canal block makes early rehabilitation after total knee replacement without the risk of inpatient falls.","PeriodicalId":18595,"journal":{"name":"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study of adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for effect on quadriceps muscle strength and postoperative pain in the patients undergoing Total knee replacement surgery\",\"authors\":\"K. Priyanka, Abhiram Nakka\",\"doi\":\"10.26611/10151912\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Total knee replacement (TKR) patients experience severe pain during the early postoperative period1 as it involves extensive bone resection and soft tissue manipulation. The objective of this prospective, randomized, comparative study is therefore to compare the adductor canal block (ACB) with femoral nerve block (FNB) on quadriceps muscle strength preservation and analgesic efficacy in the patients undergoing TKR. Material and Methods: Present study conducted in ppatients of age group 35-70 years, ASA physical status class I, II and III patients posted for unilateral TKR. 50 ppatients were randomized equally by block randomization technique. Group 1 received Adductor Canal Block (15 ml bolus of 0.18% ropivacaine followed by infusion at the rate of 8-10ml/hr), Group 2 received Femoral Nerve Block (15 ml bolus of 0.18% ropivacaine followed by infusion at the rate of 8-10ml/hr) with electromechanical infusion pump for 24 Hours. Results: Gender, BMI distribution between two groups doesn’t have significant difference. Out of 50 patients in our study 19.6% (9) patients were ASA I, 75% (39) were ASA II and 5.4% (2) patients were ASA III. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were measured preoperatively, post-operative at 6-8 hrs, at 12 hrs. and at 24 hrs. The difference in those parameters at any given time was not statistically significant. ACB is similar to FNB with respect to quadriceps muscle strength measured by MRC grading at 6 hours. However ACB is very effective in preserving the quadriceps muscle strength measured by MRC grading at 12 and 24 hours with a statistically significant ‘P’ value of 0.0001. Conclusion Adductor canal block makes early rehabilitation after total knee replacement without the risk of inpatient falls.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26611/10151912\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedPulse International Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26611/10151912","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:全膝关节置换术(TKR)患者在术后早期会经历严重的疼痛,因为它涉及广泛的骨切除和软组织操作。因此,这项前瞻性、随机、比较研究的目的是比较内收管阻滞(ACB)与股神经阻滞(FNB)对TKR患者股四头肌肌力保持和镇痛效果的影响。材料与方法:本研究对象为年龄35 ~ 70岁,ASA身体状态为I、II、III级的单侧TKR患者。采用分组随机法将50例患者平均随机化。组1给予内收管阻滞治疗(0.18%罗哌卡因15 ml丸,以8-10ml/hr的速率输注),组2给予股神经阻滞治疗(0.18%罗哌卡因15 ml丸,以8-10ml/hr的速率输注),采用机电泵输注24 h。结果:两组间性别、BMI分布无显著性差异。在我们的研究中,50例患者中有19.6%(9例)为ASA I, 75%(39例)为ASA II, 5.4%(2例)为ASA III。术前、术后6 ~ 8小时、12小时分别测量心率、收缩压、舒张压。24小时后。在任何给定时间,这些参数的差异都没有统计学意义。ACB与FNB在6小时MRC分级测量的股四头肌力量方面相似。然而,ACB在保持12小时和24小时MRC分级测量的股四头肌力量方面非常有效,具有统计学意义的P值为0.0001。结论内收管阻滞使全膝关节置换术后早期康复无住院跌倒风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative study of adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for effect on quadriceps muscle strength and postoperative pain in the patients undergoing Total knee replacement surgery
Background: Total knee replacement (TKR) patients experience severe pain during the early postoperative period1 as it involves extensive bone resection and soft tissue manipulation. The objective of this prospective, randomized, comparative study is therefore to compare the adductor canal block (ACB) with femoral nerve block (FNB) on quadriceps muscle strength preservation and analgesic efficacy in the patients undergoing TKR. Material and Methods: Present study conducted in ppatients of age group 35-70 years, ASA physical status class I, II and III patients posted for unilateral TKR. 50 ppatients were randomized equally by block randomization technique. Group 1 received Adductor Canal Block (15 ml bolus of 0.18% ropivacaine followed by infusion at the rate of 8-10ml/hr), Group 2 received Femoral Nerve Block (15 ml bolus of 0.18% ropivacaine followed by infusion at the rate of 8-10ml/hr) with electromechanical infusion pump for 24 Hours. Results: Gender, BMI distribution between two groups doesn’t have significant difference. Out of 50 patients in our study 19.6% (9) patients were ASA I, 75% (39) were ASA II and 5.4% (2) patients were ASA III. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were measured preoperatively, post-operative at 6-8 hrs, at 12 hrs. and at 24 hrs. The difference in those parameters at any given time was not statistically significant. ACB is similar to FNB with respect to quadriceps muscle strength measured by MRC grading at 6 hours. However ACB is very effective in preserving the quadriceps muscle strength measured by MRC grading at 12 and 24 hours with a statistically significant ‘P’ value of 0.0001. Conclusion Adductor canal block makes early rehabilitation after total knee replacement without the risk of inpatient falls.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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