Continuous adductor canal block following total knee arthroplasty provides a better analgesia compared to single shot: A prospective randomized controlled trial
Open Access
- 5 January 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by AVES YAYINCILIK A.Ş. in Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica
- Vol. 53 (5) , 334-339
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare single-shot adductor canal block and continuous infusion adductor canal block techniques in total knee arthroplasty patients. Methods: We prospectively randomized 123 patients who were scheduled for unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty surgery into single shot (n ¼ 60; mean age: 67.1 ± 6.9 years) and continuous (n ¼ 63; mean age: 66.9 ± 6.8 years) adductor canal block groups. Postoperative visual analog scale pain scores, need for additional opioids and functional results as; timed up and go test, the 30-s chair stand test, 5 times sit-to-stand test, the 6-min walking test, the time to active straight leg raise, time to walking upstairs, maximal flexion at the time of discharge, duration of stay in hospital were compared between the two groups. Results: Pain scores were lower in the continuous adductor canal block group as compared to the single-shot adductor canal block group throughout the postoperative period (p ¼ 0.001). Rescue analgesia was required for 6 (10%) patients in the single shot group and for 1 (1.59%) patient in the continuous group (p ¼ 0.044). Patients in the continuous adductor canal block group displayed better functional results than the single-shot adductor canal block group with respect to active straight-leg rise time (25.52 ± 4.56 h vs 30.47 ± 8.07 h, p ¼ 0.001), 6-min walking test (74.52 ± 29.38 m vs 62.18 ± 33.32 m, p ¼ 0.035) and maximal knee flexion degree at discharge (104.92 ± 5.35 vs 98.5 ± 7.55, p ¼ 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups for other functional and ambulation scores. Conclusion: Pain control following total knee arthroplasty was found to be better in those patients treated with continuous adductor canal block as compared to those treated with single-shot adductor canal block. Patients treated with continuous adductor canal block also displayed better ambulation and functional recovery following total knee arthroplasty. Level of evidence: Level I, Therapeutic Study.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Single-Injection Adductor Canal Block With Multiple Adjuvants Provides Equivalent Analgesia When Compared With Continuous Adductor Canal Blockade for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled, Equivalency TrialThe Journal of Arthroplasty, 2018
- Comparing adductor canal block with local infiltration analgesia in total knee arthroplasty: A prospective, blinded and randomized clinical trialJournal of Clinical Anesthesia, 2018
- A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial of Adductor Canal Block for Analgesia After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Single Injection Versus Catheter TechniqueThe Journal of Arthroplasty, 2018
- Adductor canal block for knee surgical procedures: review articleJournal of Clinical Anesthesia, 2016
- Meta-analysis of epidural analgesia versus peripheral nerve blockade after total knee joint replacementEuropean Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 2016
- Adductor canal block provides better performance after total knee arthroplasty compared with femoral nerve block: a systematic review and meta-analysisInternational Orthopaedics, 2015
- Adductor Canal Blockade Following Total Knee Arthroplasty—Continuous or Single Shot Technique? Role in Postoperative Analgesia, Ambulation Ability and Early Functional Recovery: A Randomized Controlled TrialThe Journal of Arthroplasty, 2015
- Pain after knee arthroplasty: an unresolved issueKnee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2013
- Predictors for moderate to severe acute postoperative pain after total hip and knee replacementInternational Orthopaedics, 2012
- Major Complications Associated with Femoral Nerve Catheters for Knee ArthroplastyThe Journal of Arthroplasty, 2009