You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Analgesic benefits of single-shot versus continuous adductor canal block for total knee arthroplasty: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Review
Analgesic benefits of single-shot versus continuous adductor canal block for total knee arthroplasty: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
  1. Nasir Hussain1,
  2. Richard Brull2,
  3. Steven Zhou1,
  4. Robert Schroell1,
  5. Colin McCartney3,
  6. Tamara Sawyer4 and
  7. Faraj Abdallah3
  1. 1Anesthesiology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
  2. 2Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, Michigan, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Faraj Abdallah, Anesthesia, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada; fabdallah{at}toh.ca

Abstract

Background Adductor canal block (ACB) can provide important analgesic benefits following total knee arthroplasty (TKA), however, the extent to which these benefits can be enhanced or prolonged by a continuous catheter-based infusion compared with a single-shot injection of local anesthetic is unclear.

Objectives This systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42021292738) review sought to compare the analgesic effectiveness of single shot to continuous ACB following TKA.

Evidence review We sought randomized trials from the US National Library of Medicine database (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to November 1, 2021, that compared single-shot to continuous ACB in adult patients undergoing TKA. The primary outcomes were (1) area under the curve (AUC) pain severity at rest and (2) cumulative opioid (oral morphine equivalent) consumption during the first 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain severity scores up to 48 hours, cumulative opioid consumption at 24 hours, functional recovery, opioid-related side effects, and block-related complications. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Statistical pooling was conducted using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects. No funding was obtained for this review.

Findings Eleven trials (1185 patients) were included. No differences were observed in rest pain severity (AUC) or cumulative opioid consumption up to 48 hours postoperatively. In addition, no differences were observed in individual postoperative rest pain scores in the recovery room and at 12 and 24 hours, or in cumulative opioid consumption at 24 hours, functional recovery, and opioid-related side effects. Finally, fewer block-related complications were observed with single-shot ACB, with an OR (95% CI) of 0.24 (0.14 to 0.41) (p=0.002).

Conclusions Our results suggest that continuous catheter-based ACB does not enhance or prolong the analgesic benefits when compared with single-shot ACB for TKA over the first 48 hours postoperatively. Overall, the results of our meta-analysis do not support the routine use of continuous ACB for postoperative analgesia after TKA.

  • Lower Extremity
  • Pain, Postoperative
  • Analgesics, Opioid

https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2022-103756

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @colinjmccartney, @Faraj_RegAnesth

    • Contributors All authors contributed to this manuscript to warrant authorship.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.