Xing-Qi Zhao1,2, Nan Jiang1,2, Fei-Fei Yuan3, Lei Wang1,2, Bin Yu4,5. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 2. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Bone and Cartilage Regenerative Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Neonate, Shanxi Children's Hospital, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China. 4. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. nanfanghot@126.com. 5. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Bone and Cartilage Regenerative Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. nanfanghot@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although several studies have compared the clinical efficacy of an adductor canal block (ACB) to that of a femoral nerve block (FNB) for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), disputes mainly exist in the recovery of quadriceps strength and mobilization ability between the two methods. The aim of the present study was to compare, in a systematic review and meta-analysis, the clinical efficacy of ACB with that of FNB. METHODS: We systematically searched randomized controlled trials comparing FNB with ACB for analgesia after TKA in Pubmed and the Cochrane Library from inception to April 30th 2015. There was no limitation of publication language. Trial quality was assessed using the modified Jadad scale, and eligible data were pooled for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Five studies of 348 patients were included. Outcomes showed that patients who received ACB had similar or better recovery of quadriceps strength and mobilization ability than those that underwent FNB. Similar efficacy was found between the two strategies regarding adductor strength, pain scores [at rest (p = 0.86), at or after knee flexion (p = 0.31)], opioid consumption (p = 0.99), opioid-associated adverse effects (p = 0.60), length of hospital stay (p = 0.42), patient satisfaction (p = 0.57), and success rate of blockade (p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that TKA patients who receive ACB can achieve similar or even better recovery of quadriceps strength and mobilization ability than those treated with FNB. Taken as a whole, ACB may be a better analgesia strategy after TKA at present.
PURPOSE: Although several studies have compared the clinical efficacy of an adductor canal block (ACB) to that of a femoral nerve block (FNB) for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), disputes mainly exist in the recovery of quadriceps strength and mobilization ability between the two methods. The aim of the present study was to compare, in a systematic review and meta-analysis, the clinical efficacy of ACB with that of FNB. METHODS: We systematically searched randomized controlled trials comparing FNB with ACB for analgesia after TKA in Pubmed and the Cochrane Library from inception to April 30th 2015. There was no limitation of publication language. Trial quality was assessed using the modified Jadad scale, and eligible data were pooled for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Five studies of 348 patients were included. Outcomes showed that patients who received ACB had similar or better recovery of quadriceps strength and mobilization ability than those that underwent FNB. Similar efficacy was found between the two strategies regarding adductor strength, pain scores [at rest (p = 0.86), at or after knee flexion (p = 0.31)], opioid consumption (p = 0.99), opioid-associated adverse effects (p = 0.60), length of hospital stay (p = 0.42), patient satisfaction (p = 0.57), and success rate of blockade (p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that TKA patients who receive ACB can achieve similar or even better recovery of quadriceps strength and mobilization ability than those treated with FNB. Taken as a whole, ACB may be a better analgesia strategy after TKA at present.
Authors: James R Hebl; Sandra L Kopp; Mir H Ali; Terese T Horlocker; John A Dilger; Robert L Lennon; Brent A Williams; Arlen D Hanssen; Mark W Pagnano Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: M Kwesi Kwofie; Uma D Shastri; Jeff C Gadsden; Sanjay K Sinha; Jonathan H Abrams; Daquan Xu; Emine A Salviz Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: P Jaeger; U Grevstad; M H Henningsen; B Gottschau; O Mathiesen; J B Dahl Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: Stavros G Memtsoudis; Daniel Yoo; Ottokar Stundner; Thomas Danninger; Yan Ma; Lazaros Poultsides; David Kim; Mary Chisholm; Kethy Jules-Elysee; Alejandro Gonzalez Della Valle; Thomas P Sculco Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: M T Jenstrup; P Jæger; J Lund; J S Fomsgaard; S Bache; O Mathiesen; T K Larsen; J B Dahl Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: Matthew T Charous; Sarah J Madison; Preetham J Suresh; NavParkash S Sandhu; Vanessa J Loland; Edward R Mariano; Michael C Donohue; Pascual H Dutton; Eliza J Ferguson; Brian M Ilfeld Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Ryan R Thacher; Thomas R Hickernell; Matthew J Grosso; Roshan Shah; Herbert J Cooper; Robert Maniker; Anthony Robin Brown; Jeffrey Geller Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2017-04-15