The Efficacy of Combined Popliteal and Ankle Blocks in Forefoot Surgery
BackgroundPostoperative pain following forefoot surgery can be difficult to control with oral analgesia. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of a combined popliteal and ankle block with that of an ankle block alone in providing postoperative analgesia following forefoot surgery.Methods...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 2008-07, Vol.90 (7), p.1443-1446 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | BackgroundPostoperative pain following forefoot surgery can be difficult to control with oral analgesia. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of a combined popliteal and ankle block with that of an ankle block alone in providing postoperative analgesia following forefoot surgery.MethodsWe performed a prospective, randomized, controlled single-blind study involving sixty-three patients, twenty-six of whom had a combined ankle and popliteal block and thirty-seven of whom had an ankle block alone. All patients underwent an elective osseous surgical procedure on the forefoot. Postoperative pain was evaluated with use of a visual analogue scale and a verbal response form. Patient satisfaction was also recorded.ResultsThe patients who had had a combined popliteal and ankle block had significantly less pain at six hours postoperatively (p = 0.011), twenty-four hours postoperatively (p < 0.001), and at discharge (p = 0.014). This group of patients also had higher satisfaction with pain relief.ConclusionsA popliteal block in conjunction with an ankle block provides significantly better pain relief than does an ankle block alone in patients undergoing forefoot surgery.Level of EvidenceTherapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0021-9355 1535-1386 |
DOI: | 10.2106/JBJS.G.01133 |