Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background The clinical analgesic efficacy of iliopsoas plane block remains a subject of discussion. This study aimed to assess the analgesic efficacy of iliopsoas plane block under general anesthesia using multimodal analgesia.
Methods Fifty-six adult patients who underwent elective primary hip arthroplasty were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either a single-shot iliopsoas plane block (10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine with 1:200 000 epinephrine) or a sham block (10 mL normal saline). All patients received general anesthesia, multimodal analgesia (preoperative buprenorphine patch, 5 µg/h), intraoperative intravenous dexamethasone (8 mg) and nefopam (20 mg), and round-the-clock acetaminophen and celecoxib. The primary outcome was the numeric rating scale pain score at rest 6 hour after surgery.
Results Iliopsoas plane block did not have a notable advantage over the sham block in terms of pain relief at rest, as assessed by the numeric rating scale score, 6 hour after total hip arthroplasty (iliopsoas plane block: median, 4.0; IQR, 2.0–5.8; sham: median, 5.5; IQR, 2.3–6.8; median difference, −1.0; 95% CI −2.0 to 0.0; p≥0.999). Linear mixed model analysis showed no differences in pain scores, opioid consumption, quadriceps strength, or quality of recovery between the groups.
Conclusions Iliopsoas plane block did not improve postoperative analgesia following total hip arthroplasty under general anesthesia with a multimodal analgesic regimen. The blockade of sensory femoral branches supplying the anterior hip capsule using iliopsoas plane block may not yield additional benefits concerning patient outcomes in the aforementioned clinical context.
Trial registration number NCT05212038, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05212038
- Lower Extremity
- Pain, Postoperative
- Postoperative Complications
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Footnotes
Contributors JYK and D-HK conceived the idea for this study, designed and planned the data collection, and participated in the data analysis, interpretation, and manuscript writing. JYK, JSL, EJY, WL, and SL participated in the data collection for this study, data analysis, reporting and review of the manuscript. D-HK accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.
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.