You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 38, Issue 6
  • Adductor Canal Block Versus Femoral Nerve Block for Analgesia After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Double-blind Study

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original Articles
Adductor Canal Block Versus Femoral Nerve Block for Analgesia After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Double-blind Study
  1. Pia Jæger, MD*,
  2. Dusanka Zaric, MD, DMSci†,
  3. Jonna S. Fomsgaard, MD‡,
  4. Karen Lisa Hilsted, RN*,
  5. Jens Bjerregaard, MD‡,
  6. Jens Gyrn, MD†,
  7. Ole Mathiesen, MD, PhD§,
  8. Tommy K. Larsen, MD∥ and
  9. Jørgen B. Dahl, MD, DMSci, MBAex*
  1. *Department of Anaesthesia, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen; †Department of Anaesthesia, Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Frederiksberg; ‡Department of Anaesthesia, Glostrup Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Glostrup; §Section of Acute Pain Management, Department of Anaesthesia, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen; and ∥Department of Surgery, Glostrup Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark.
  1. Address correspondence to: Pia Jæger, MD, Department of Anaesthesia, 4231, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark (e-mail: pia.therese.jaeger{at}regionh.dk).

Abstract

Background and Objectives Femoral nerve block (FNB), a commonly used postoperative pain treatment after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), reduces quadriceps muscle strength essential for mobilization. In contrast, adductor canal block (ACB) is predominately a sensory nerve block. We hypothesized that ACB preserves quadriceps muscle strength as compared with FNB (primary end point) in patients after TKA. Secondary end points were effects on morphine consumption, pain, adductor muscle strength, morphine-related complications, and mobilization ability.

Methods We performed a double-blind, randomized, controlled study of patients scheduled for TKA with spinal anesthesia. The patients were randomized to receive either a continuous ACB or an FNB via a catheter (30-mL 0.5% ropivacaine given initially, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine, 8 mL/h for 24 hours). Muscle strength was assessed with a handheld dynamometer, and we used the percentile change from baseline for comparisons. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01470391).

Results We enrolled 54 patients, of which 48 were analyzed. Quadriceps strength as a percentage of baseline was significantly higher in the ACB group compared with the FNB group: (median [range]) 52% [31–71] versus 18% [4–48], (95% confidence interval, 8–41; P = 0.004). There was no difference between the groups regarding morphine consumption (P = 0.94), pain at rest (P = 0.21), pain during flexion of the knee (P = 0.16), or adductor muscle strength (P = 0.39); neither was there a difference in morphine-related adverse effects or mobilization ability (P > 0.05).

Conclusions Adductor canal block preserved quadriceps muscle strength better than FNB, without a significant difference in postoperative pain.

https://doi.org/10.1097/AAP.0000000000000015

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.

    Footnotes

    • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

      The study was awarded the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy Research Grant (Brussels, Belgium).

      The department and institution to which the work should be attributed: Department of Anaesthesia, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

      Abstract was presented at Euroanaesthesia 2013 Congress, Barcelona, Spain, June 1–4, 2013.

      Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.rapm.org)